Any day now we should reach the critical mass of gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens" where we become safe

[Le duke]

Are they available?  Let's be realistic.  BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry,  so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place.  Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.

Affordable is a relative term.

And, that’s irrelevant. With a literal, by-the-text reading of the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to prevent a wealthy individual from buying the components and making one, or buying one from a third party provider.

Also, 100lbs is easily man portable. Thousands of American servicemen have carried a 100lb combat load on countless combat patrols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le duke]

seriously....you really believe this??  Come on....

You’re joking, right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigbrog]

19 minutes ago, Le duke said:

You’re joking, right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Ban all the guns that weren't available when they wrote the constitution because??  Seriously?  Such a weak argument.  You know what...the government didn't have the weapons we have now when the constitution wasn't written either...the concept still stands...and should always stand.  It's illegal to own a fully automatic weapon...you can't own nuclear weapons...the list goes on and on...yet, take guns away from people??  

[Le duke]

  Ban all the guns that weren't available when they wrote the constitution because??  Seriously?  Such a weak argument.  You know what...the government didn't have the weapons we have now when the constitution wasn't written either...the concept still stands...and should always stand.  It's illegal to own a fully automatic weapon...you can't own nuclear weapons...the list goes on and on...yet, take guns away from people??  

I didn’t say that.

I’m simply pointing out that there would appear to be some limitations on what arms you could bear, legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Parrish]

4 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Are they available?  Let's be realistic.  BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry,  so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place.  Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.

Well then, it sounds like you would favor the legalization of chemical and biological weapons.

[El Luchador]

7 hours ago, Le duke said:

I didn’t say that.

I’m simply pointing out that there would appear to be some limitations on what arms you could bear, legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are trying to link WMDs and bearable arms, that is intellectually dishonest. 

[El Luchador]

 

 

 

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

You are trying to link WMDs and bearable arms, that is intellectually dishonest. 

He is absolutely honest.  Lots of WMDs are bearable and regulated so tightly they can't be owned for all intents and purposes.  High grade explosives for example.  Assault weapons are a counter-example of WMDs that are not well regulated.

[El Luchador]

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

He is absolutely honest.  Lots of WMDs are bearable and regulated so tightly they can't be owned for all intents and purposes.  High grade explosives for example.  Assault weapons are a counter-example of WMDs that are not well regulated.

WMDs are not even remotely relevant.  They are indiscriminate and uncontrollable. But let's be realistic,  explosives are controlled as are chemicals,  but it would take minimal effort to construct a significant explosive weapon.  It happens all over the world in terrorism attacks.  Where there is a will there will always be a way. Timothy McVeigh would not have been stopped by regulations, nor would Darrel Brooks have been. All that you can do is change up the method. 

[Mike Parrish]

58 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

WMDs are not even remotely relevant.  They are indiscriminate and uncontrollable. But let's be realistic,  explosives are controlled as are chemicals,  but it would take minimal effort to construct a significant explosive weapon.  It happens all over the world in terrorism attacks.  Where there is a will there will always be a way. Timothy McVeigh would not have been stopped by regulations, nor would Darrel Brooks have been. All that you can do is change up the method. 

That's just flatly wrong.

Russia has nearly perfected the art of using novichok with limited collateral damage.

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

That's just flatly wrong.

Russia has nearly perfected the art of using novichok with limited collateral damage.

You prefer other poisons? Again you could never even come close to regulating everything that could be used as a poison. Phosgene gas can easily be made by anyone. So again you seek regulations that would be completely worthless. Forcing someone to change their weapons will never prevent any crime.  

[Mike Parrish]

33 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You prefer other poisons? Again you could never even come close to regulating everything that could be used as a poison. Phosgene gas can easily be made by anyone. So again you seek regulations that would be completely worthless. Forcing someone to change their weapons will never prevent any crime.  

Is your solution to regulate nothing?
 

[Offthemat]

It’s not about preventing crime.  More people are beaten to death than are killed by rifles, yet they are after rifles.  Especially the ones that are defined as rifles that soldiers use or anything that looks kinda like a rifle soldiers carry.  

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Is your solution to regulate nothing?
 

The act, not the tool. 

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The act, not the tool. 

So, you guys would appear to be A-OK with Timothy McVeigh right up until the point he detonated those explosives.

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

So, you guys would appear to be A-OK with Timothy McVeigh right up until the point he detonated those explosives.

Maybe you should look a little closer. 

[Plasmodium]

I can't imagine the hellscape we would live in if C4 ( a bearable arm!!! ) were regulated like assault weapons.  Just imagine if HS kids could go to Walmart and buy 100 lbs of it.  I bet they could slay a lot of hawgs!!!!

[Mike Parrish]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Maybe you should look a little closer. 

Perhaps you can clarify your position?

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I can't imagine the hellscape we would live in if C4 ( a bearable arm!!! ) were regulated like assault weapons.  Just imagine if HS kids could go to Walmart and buy 100 lbs of it.  I bet they could slay a lot of hawgs!!!!

 

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Perhaps you can clarify your position?

I guess things don’t “appear” the same to everyone. 

[Mike Parrish]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

 

I guess things don’t “appear” the same to everyone. 

Hence my asking you to clarify your position.

[Plasmodium]

People do not need more than a five round magazine, hand guns included.  Rifles should be bolt action.  Assault weapons should be turned into plows.

[El Luchador]

47 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

So, you guys would appear to be A-OK with Timothy McVeigh right up until the point he detonated those explosives.

So do you want to prohibit diesel fuel, or fertilizer? 

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, El Luchador said:

So do you want to prohibit diesel fuel, or fertilizer? 

Should the federal and state governments remain unable to prevent acts like McVeigh's prior to the actual detonation?

It goes to intent.

[El Luchador]

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

People do not need more than a five round magazine, hand guns included.  Rifles should be bolt action.  Assault weapons should be turned into plows.

Arbitrary number. Literally would out law 99% of all guns, and solve nothing. 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Should the federal and state governments remain unable to prevent acts like McVeigh's prior to the actual detonation?

It goes to intent.

Only within the limitations of the constitution.