Where do you draw the line when it comes to which weapons should be controlled? (self.Republican)

37 ups - 34 downs = 3 votes

I'm sure most of us would agree that no-one should legally be able to obtain a grenade launcher or a Sherman tank (complete with shells) for personal use.

In other words, everyone has a set of weapons they consider too powerful for public access (atom bombs included in consideration); what does your set include (and why)?

Edit: I accidentely a word, formatting

60 comments submitted at 07:58:56 on Feb 2, 2013 by ionlion1

  • [-]
  • keypuncher
  • 5 Points
  • 11:53:41, 2 February

I think that personally I would draw the line at WMDs.

Not because of any special horrible destructive power, but rather because they are of no real use for the purposes the 2nd Amendment was written for, and would instead be a hazard to the very populace that the 2nd is intended to protect from a tyrannical government.

Consider poison gas. As a weapon against the US military, it is nearly useless - unless perfectly deployed when they were essentially on top of it, and unaware of its presence in the hands of a resistance, the military has defensive gear that will completely negate the effectiveness of the gas. Any local civilian population will not be as fortunate, and will receive the full effects. Further, such weapons must be stored carefully and maintained properly, or they become a danger to everyone nearby in peacetime. The government has the discipline and funds to do that in perpetuity, few civilians do.

Consider a nuclear weapon. As a weapon of war against the US military, it would be effective against troops in the open or non-hardened military installations. Outside the blast zone, troops in armored vehicles would survive. The collateral damage however, would be severe, and result in the deaths of far more civilians than military. Storage and maintenance however, would be a problem, as they are extremely expensive to maintain, and tritium is not easily available. Delivery of the weapon to its target in a timely fashion would also be a problem. Putting a nuke in a truck and driving cross country is less than ideal, and adding a missile to your nuclear weapon brings in a whole new level of complexity and cost.

Consider a bioweapon. As a weapon of war against the US military, it would certainly be effective - but it would be just as effective against the civilian populace, and is completely indiscriminate. Containment and storage is even more of a problem than with gas, and if bad actors should get their hands on one, the results could be catastrophic.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 2 Points
  • 19:39:13, 2 February

Man, I had to make an account just to call this out and lay some perspective on you, civvy. You are talking about killing my brothers in arms here! Are you even freaking listening to yourself? You sound nuts. You are talking about people like me who spent ten years in hell defending your interests and trying to prevent your death at the hands of armed extremists. And here you are skulking in your little reddit cave thoughtfully considering the efficacy of using poison gas on US servicemen. Man, we shot people for doing as much overseas and it is pathetic and depressing to come home and see people doing it here. You want to kill soldiers? You want to murder my brothers? You want to be an insurgent taking up arms and fighting for a cause? You go to Afghanistan and see how long you last.

  • [-]
  • keypuncher
  • 0 Points
  • 20:46:39, 2 February

I'm ex-military. They're my brothers in arms too. If the use of arms for the purpose the 2nd Amendment was written for becomes necessary, I dearly hope that many of them will be on our side.

Some will not - and for those, we'll need the tools necessary to stop them.

> And here you are skulking in your little reddit cave thoughtfully considering the efficacy of using poison gas on US servicemen. Man, we shot people for doing as much overseas and it is pathetic and depressing to come home and see people doing it here.

If you pay attention, I specifically said that such weapons should not be in the hands of civilians.

> You want to kill soldiers? You want to murder my brothers? You want to be an insurgent taking up arms and fighting for a cause?

I would prefer none of that ever becomes necessary - but the 2nd Amendment was written so that as a last resort, it was possible.

If the US government ever does become the sort of tyranny that requires the sort of uprising Jefferson envisioned, some of the military will continue to fight for it. I would prefer they did not. I would prefer that en-masse, they stood up and said "we will not do this" and enabled a bloodless restoration of the values our country was founded on. History tells us that is not how things will go.

> You go to Afghanistan and see how long you last.

Been in that part of the world. Didn't like it much.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 3 Points
  • 21:05:21, 2 February

Save your shit for someone who is buying it, Sergeant Stolen Valor. I have no respect for you or anyone else who thinks that putting bullets in my brothers would ever be an acceptable option.

  • [-]
  • keypuncher
  • -1 Points
  • 21:21:15, 2 February

...and people like you, are exactly why the 2nd is needed - because if the government does become a tyranny, you will continue to fight for it.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 3 Points
  • 21:29:34, 2 February

People like you are the reason the law and order is needed. People like you that would not hesitate to bomb or blast to make their point. People like you that think hard on whether or not it would be effective to use poison gas on troops who fought for you. People like you that would pick up a gun, put it to a veteran's skull, and spray his brains all over your freakish ideals. I lived in your world for 10 years and I will never allow any fucking nut on the right OR left make the US look anything remotely like Afghanistan.

  • [-]
  • keypuncher
  • -1 Points
  • 21:31:25, 2 February

I encourage you to read the 2nd Amendment again, and the words of the Founders on why they thought it was necessary. The Federalist Papers would be a good bit of reading for you as well.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 3 Points
  • 21:33:32, 2 February

You can wrap yourself and your 'cause' in all the paper your want. All I see is terrorism in its infancy. A sight I recognize better than any man should.

  • [-]
  • keypuncher
  • -1 Points
  • 21:42:42, 2 February

So said the British, of the Colonists in the 1770s.

The Germans, Italians, and French (twice) have all had Democratic governments turn into tyrannies that murdered their own citizens in job lots. The Founders were well aware this could happen - and took steps to prevent it. The last resort of those steps is armed rebellion against a tyrannical government - which is only possible if the populace is in fact armed.

I am under no illusions that such a rebellion would be good for anyone while it was going on, or even that it would be successful. The 2nd just gives the people the option to attempt it, should it become necessary - and to hopefully replace that tyrannical government with one that is not.

We have the example of what the Founders set up to guide us on that last point, though I do not have great hopes there either. History is full of rebellions that resulted in worse governments than those they replaced.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 3 Points
  • 21:46:05, 2 February

The second doesn't say shit about launching a rebellion. You are just reading a bunch of bullshit into it to justify shooting soldiers and scaring people to make your fruity fucking political points. There is a word for that. It is called terrorism.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • King_Chuck
  • -1 Points
  • 19:46:28, 2 February

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

  • [-]
  • MotoMadMotoSmash
  • 2 Points
  • 19:50:29, 2 February

Ahahaha. What the fuck?