Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it?

Old 15th Nov 2014, 06:57
  #1781 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Dushan View Post
You don't do as you please. You do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no guns, but would have full freedom to own guns.
You don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons

The whole "we're free" bit simply isn't the case any more to the degree which you are pushing it. It certainly was at the inception of your nation, and it was for some time after that, but there is a huge list of things you cannot do because your government (state or federal) says so. You basically have one more freedom than us in this respect, and it's one which costs you an extra bunch of deaths per year. Jefferson's tree of liberty requires a hell of a lot of refreshment, and appears to not care if it is the blood of patriots, tyrants or innocent bystanders which it sups on for this one freedom.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 13:27
  #1782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Speaking of eggs, I went with friends for Vietnamese Steak & Eggs this morning in one of the largest cities in the US, in the center of a massive urban enterprise of some 5 million people. More people of every hue and ethnicity than in all of Norway, together in this bustling, thriving place, in a state that has more people than the Netherlands. The GDP of the state is larger than that of most European countries and insignificant South Pacific island-states.

How do we manage this, I thought, while savoring the delicious egg dish. According to our European betters, we are all cowering in fear, armed to the teeth, waiting for the apocalypse! We need to change our ways, and they are here to explain how!

Fortunately there were no tiresome busybodies around to tell us how to live our lives. Although there were people from every corner of the globe, all pursuing different professions and hobbies, a couple gun owners, a fishermen, and a goofy artist. We were just enjoying ourselves, our company, and especially, the eggs.
Matari is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 13:51
  #1783 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by PTT View Post
You don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons
Are you confusing me with someone from NZ? What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?
 
Old 15th Nov 2014, 14:00
  #1784 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Dushan View Post
What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?
Thank you for proving my point very nicely. Your government says you can't have them, so you don't do as you please but as your government thinks is best for you.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 14:35
  #1785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
PTT, thats BS. The 2nd Amendment states specifically that as a US citizen, you have the right to bear ARMS. I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons count as 'arms', so any decision by the US Government that contradicts the 2nd has to be unconstitutional. Does it not?

Sounds just like the 'tyrannical government' the 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against imo. Where is the outrage?
Hempy is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:07
  #1786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Hempy,

Well, then it really just a matter of where to draw the line then. You propose the line could be drawn at nuclear weapons; I'm more along the lines of Gatling guns. I have several friends with real live machine guns, so that seems to be fine. ICBM in the backyard would cool, but the neighbors might not like my foreign policy.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:23
  #1787 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Well, then it really just a matter of where to draw the line then.
The existence of a line proves my point. We merely draw it in different places.

And if I read him right Hempy was being sarcastic. I may well have that wrong, though...
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:31
  #1788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,642
Don't think anyone has proven in the strictest legal sense that I can't have a nuke in my garage PTT.
West Coast is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:34
  #1789 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
I linked the relevant US code above: 42 U.S. Code § 2131 - License required | LII / Legal Information Institute
It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person within the United States to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export any utilization or production facility except under and in accordance with a license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 2133 or 2134 of this title.
Here's another: 42 U.S. Code § 2122 - Prohibitions governing atomic weapons | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:38
  #1790 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by PTT View Post
Thank you for proving my point very nicely. Your government says you can't have them, so you don't do as you please but as your government thinks is best for you.
Your point, if there at all, is obtuse as usual.

You said:
If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons
To which I replied:
What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?

Just because I don't have them doesn't mean I wouldn't want them. There are a lot of thing I don't have that I want.

OTOH Magnus had and wanted his guns but is not allowed and had to forfeit them to be destroyed, which is crime against humanity when a Colt Python is destroyed.
 
Old 15th Nov 2014, 15:44
  #1791 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Dushan - my point is quite clear: you don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. The only difference is where the line is drawn as to what weapons our governments allow us to own.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 16:02
  #1792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,642
No nukes huh?

PTT

Thanks, I guess this gives further ammunition to the under reported weapons theory. A nuke in every garage in my motto.
West Coast is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 16:33
  #1793 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
I guess this gives further ammunition to the under reported weapons theory.
How so?
A nuke in every garage in my motto.
Of course it is...
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 16:49
  #1794 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Suppose this rhetorical issue actually did materialize with an individual seeking to own and possess a nuclear weapon, and fight in court to secure his 'right'.

I expect it would be adjudicated that a nuclear weapon is not an 'arm' as envisioned by the 2nd amendment, but rather a high explosive, and categorized as such would not be protected. Ample laws are in place in, I suspect, all jurisdictions in the US limiting possession and use of explosives.

Perhaps a few 2nd amendment supporters might think such a right exists, but any assertion would garner no support among the rest of us. Even in the event a nuclear weapon could be miniaturized to the size of a rifle shell, the explosives argument would prevail, along with existing federal statutes prohibiting nuclear weapons as cited above.
BenThere is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 16:58
  #1795 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
I expect it would be adjudicated that a nuclear weapon is not an 'arm' as envisioned by the 2nd amendment
So it's merely a matter of interpretation by the government (in this case the judiciary). Like I said: they define where the line is drawn.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 17:50
  #1796 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
PTT, you know what? You are being tiresomely pedantic, as usual. The bottom line is we can have handguns, you can't.

Don't go around drawing some imaginary line. Ours is way, way in the distance (if it even exists), and yours is right under your nose, or more like right through your nose.

Live with it.
 
Old 15th Nov 2014, 18:23
  #1797 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
You keep banging on about all this freedom which you have which we allegedly don't and it only boils down to one actual freedom, which itself is only a matter of where the government puts the line of what you can and cannot own. You are as much subject to the liberties given by your government as we are. If your best argument against that is that it is "tiresomely pedantic" then all that means is that you can't find a substantive argument to counter it.

I repeat: you basically have one more freedom than us in this respect, and it's one which costs you an extra bunch of deaths per year. Jefferson's tree of liberty requires a hell of a lot of refreshment, and appears to not care if it is the blood of patriots, tyrants or innocent bystanders which it sups on for this one freedom.
PTT is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 19:05
  #1798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
A government is supposed to govern and if they cannot provide the conditions for a society to develop that is inherently safe for the citizens without them having to arm themselves then it has failed.

There are several such regimes around the world and sadly the US is one of them.
John Hill is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 19:12
  #1799 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by John Hill View Post
A government is supposed to govern and if they cannot provide the conditions for a society to develop that is inherently safe for the citizens without them having to arm themselves then it has failed.

There are several such regimes around the world and sadly the US is one of them.
Not too many people (if any) eating grass* in US, John Hill.








* Some have been subjected to eating worse, like Brussels Sprouts, but we'll leave con-pilot out of this.
 
Old 15th Nov 2014, 19:17
  #1800 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by PTT View Post
If your best argument against that is that it is "tiresomely pedantic" then all that means is that you can't find a substantive argument to counter it.

You got it. No argument. I can have a handgun(s) and you can't.

 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.