Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available?

[Rob E]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public private citizen, not affiliated to any government and not necessary skilled in the use of the device.

This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

Edit: If you do think there should be no limits on ownership, please indicate if you have procedural limits on the use of a typical item.

ok  say in the spectrum of somebody owning a "PVC" pipe for spitting dried peas to owning a nuclear war head how would you state their political position. . ? ?

 

[Rob E]

Ok ay just a dumb question plus co poster. .

[organofcorti]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public private citizen, not affiliated to any government and not necessary skilled in the use of the device.

This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

Edit: If you do think there should be no limits on ownership, please indicate if you have procedural limits on the use of a typical item.

ok  say in the spectrum of somebody owning a "PVC" pipe for spitting dried peas to owning a nuclear war head how would you state their political position. . ? ?

 

That's what I'm hoping they can tell me.

[ciphermonk]

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate what is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

I agree that nukes are generally impossible to use without producing collateral damage. If you follow the libertarian principle of non-aggression, holding a nuke in a densely populated area is a threat of aggression to everyone living in that area. This is mainly because there's no way you can use your nuke purely for self defense, or to target it only at the "criminals". It's equivalent to holding a gun to everyone's head in that area.

I'm not sure whats the most efficient way to save the planet from an asteroid on collision trajectory. Perhaps, if we detect it sufficiently early, we can send a probe or satellite to fly next to it for a few weeks or months. Even the weak gravitational pull of the probe should be enough, over a sufficiently long period of time, to deviate it from it's course. It's also probably much more predictable than blowing up a nuke next to it.

Not sure about aliens ... don't think we need to worry just yet

Cheers !

[myrkul]

I like self-defense. Just happens guns are the most effective tool to exercise that fundamental human right, so I have no choice but to be proficient in their use and not hate what is used to save innocent life many times more than it is used to harm it. If The Force and lightsabers existed, or Phasers (original Trek), I'd carry one instead.

Everything should be legally available, but if you use it aggressively or negligently, you must pay, government or not. I don't see how it's possible to use a nuke in self-defense due to "collateral damage", but if you can have one (and secure it 100% against misuse) without harming innocents, then why not? Have it around in case aliens try to invade, an asteroid is on a collision course with earth, load it onto a rocket and detonate it just close enough to divert the trajectory, but not break it up so the earth gets hit with space buckshot.

I agree that nukes are generally impossible to use without producing collateral damage. If you follow the libertarian principle of non-aggression, holding a nuke in a densely populated area is a threat of aggression to everyone living in that area. This is mainly because there's no way you can use your nuke purely for self defense, or to target it only at the "criminals". It's equivalent to holding a gun to everyone's head in that area.

A nuke does have - like any bomb - non-weapon uses. Most notably in mining, particularly asteroid mining, where fallout is less of a concern. I would also argue that simply holding the nuke is not a threat to all in the area, but arming it is.

As for aliens, well, should aggressive aliens show up in our neighborhood, the more humans with nukes, the better.

[Peter Lambert]

So you like guns.

I'm interested in knowing what weapons, body armour and other high tech gadgetry you think should be allowed to the general public private citizen, not affiliated to any government and not necessary skilled in the use of the device.

This is for me a very interesting question because most people will have limits, even if that limit is a nuclear weapon. The limits various people have help me understand their political beliefs better.

Edit: If you do think there should be no limits on ownership, please indicate if you have procedural limits on the use of a typical item.

Why should there be any difference which weapons I can buy based on whether or not I am wearing a government uniform?

I think there should be no restrictions on weapons. If there comes a time when armed insurrection is necessary, I do not want my enemies to have such a huge advantage just because they are supporting the status quo.

[Lethn]

When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties. - Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

[myrkul]

 "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Dalkore]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

[myrkul]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

[Dalkore]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

A company I would hope.

[myrkul]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

A company I would hope.

Not too bright, are you?

A company starts a company.

Let's try again, this time devoting a few more seconds of thought to your answer.

[Dalkore]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

A company I would hope.

Not too bright, are you?

A company starts a company.

Let's try again, this time devoting a few more seconds of thought to your answer.

I know where your going with this and your irresponsible to try to extend that logic to the point where anyone should have a nuke.  You are the one who is showing they are not very bright.   Please do continue you to discredit yourself.  It just takes away from serious consideration of other decent points you have made.  

Continue please....

P.S.  For the record, yes companies can start companies, they are called subsidiaries.

[myrkul]

Advocating the general public access to nuclear weapons.  I laugh at you all.  No sense between the lot of you.    Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

And who starts and runs those asteroid mining companies?

A company I would hope.

Not too bright, are you?

A company starts a company.

Let's try again, this time devoting a few more seconds of thought to your answer.

I know where your going with this and your irresponsible to try to extend that logic to the point where anyone should have a nuke.  You are the one who is showing they are not very bright.   Please do continue you to discredit yourself.  It just takes away from serious consideration of other decent points you have made.  

Continue please....

P.S.  For the record, yes companies can start companies, they are called subsidiaries.

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

[Dalkore]

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable to the point that if you were making laws, rules or policies voluntary or not, DANGEROUS.  Your advocating lunacy.   I am not going to debate with someone with such a large lack on sense by advocating dangerous ideas.   I mean dangerous to anyone around people who would be implementing them.

I should not or anyone else, need to be under potential threat of some person with an ICBM in his lawn that one day might decide I am going to arm and light this thing off someday because he decides to leave the ranch.   This is just one example and I am sure he has many more of these extreme ideas in his oh so large brain of his.   Utter non-sense.   Good day sir.


Dalkore

[myrkul]

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable...

My point is that you were advocating the same thing:

Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else?

[Dalkore]

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable...

My point is that you were advocating the same thing:

Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else?

A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen.  You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up?   

I have a guess and I stated it above.  You already pulled that little stunt with the waving a gun in public in which you either lied or were just purposely being ignorant to the grammar used.   I am seriously starting to doubt your intellectual honesty.   I am seeing something of quite a contrast from reading many of your statements and positions.   

[myrkul]

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable...

My point is that you were advocating the same thing:

Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else?

A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen.  You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up?   

So your contention is that the collectivization does turn a group of private citizens into something else entirely, simply by one of those citizens signing some papers.

Do companies never have disgruntled employees? Do these employees never have access to sensitive materials? What additional protection do you see from allowing a collected group of citizens to own and use nukes, as opposed to single citizens? What about small businesses, just a single person?

[Explodicle]

There's no such thing as a 100% safe anything, particularly nuclear bombs. However, not allowing anyone but large governments access seems unfair and dangerous. So I think keeping them from either no one or everyone is unreasonable, and a moderate solution is needed.

One good idea I saw before was to simply require full liability insurance for weapons. If your nuke goes off for whatever reason and kills innocents, you are required to pay restitution to their next of kin. That way we can buy mining nukes, but crazy idiots can't just collect them willy nilly. This policy would nicely scale down too, providing arms more cheaply to people who have taken a gun safety course. Regulations might reduce the risk of accident, but WHEN one happens without restitution it's still unjust.

This libility insurance requirement would have to go all the way down the supply chain as well. I'd imagine this could work in the context of either a state or anarchy. Thoughts?

[Dalkore]

Oh, so close! Tell me, who starts the companies that start the companies that start the companies...?

And certainly subsidiaries aren't the only way that companies get started, are they?

And who runs those companies?

If this is how you are going to use logic then we are not actually debating anything of substance and if you are truly support nuclear weapons in the hands of the private citizens then you are mentally unstable...

My point is that you were advocating the same thing:

Maybe an asteroid mining company with very stringent rules and regulations.

Mining companies are comprised of, and run by, private citizens. Or does the collectivization turn them into something else?

A company heavily regulated for their access to use nuclear weapons is far and away a different thing than a private citizen.  You know that so I don't understand why you even bringing this point up?   

So your contention is that the collectivization does turn a group of private citizens into something else entirely, simply by one of those citizens signing some papers.

Do companies never have disgruntled employees? Do these employees never have access to sensitive materials? What additional protection do you see from allowing a collected group of citizens to own and use nukes, as opposed to single citizens? What about small businesses, just a single person?

PRIVATE CITIZENS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS [Full Stop]

As for this disgruntled employee.  Obviously you have not researched into our current safeguard, I'll tell you how we stop that.   They get their nuke into space to the asteroid it it only gets armed once it is very close to its target, armed not by the company and control of the nuke would be in the government that regulates this activity.   They would of also submitted a plan on the project and where impact was needed so there would be some sudden change at the last second by the government that would jeopardize their investments and capital.