Matthews Challenges 2nd Amendment Advocate Over…Bazookas?

http://radioviceonline.com/ ^ | April 20, 2010 | Jim Vicevich

[Favor Center]

“That’s why war is an extension of politics.”

“Legal” regarding sovereign entities tends to be fluid.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Ya know, both of you guys love to heap insults and abuse. That’s okay. I’m a big boy and I can take it. Lets cut to the chase because I tire of your rants and you won’t answer the central argument that I have posited to both of you.

According to your 2nd amendment analysis, Timothy McVeigh was completely legal and within his rights to build and transport his dirty bomb to Oklahoma city and park it outside the Federal building. If a cop had stopped him up to this point, in your 2nd amendment world, they could have done nothing. He kept and beared his arms. In this case a dirty bomb. According to you, he only committed a crime when he detonated the bomb. Is that the position you now take?

According to your second amendment analysis, one of these Muzzie training camps in the U.S. could obtain a suitcase nuke and an American citizen muzzie could take it into the center of New York city. This American citizen who happened to be an Islamo muzzie would be perfectly legal to do so in your second amendment world. He was keeping and bearing his arms. He would only commit a crime upon detonating and wiping our hundreds of thousands of people. We could arrest him after that I suppose except he would be vaporized along with a lot of other people. Is this the position you take?

In your second amendment universe, a David Koresh type could obtain a suitcase nuke in his Mount Carmel compound. He could bring it into the center of a major city like Dallas and be well within his keeping and bearing of arms rights. Acting as the savior he could kick off the apocolypse by detonating that and only then would he be committing a crime. Are you prepared to defend that?

The reason that none of the last two things have happened is because its almost impossible to get a suitcase nuke. If we allowed citizens the ability to get one legally, there would be a market for them. Supply and demand. You can bet your bottom dollar there would be a demand. From U.S. citizens who have never committed crimes, like the above instances.

You won’t agree with allowing the purchase of suitcase nukes and dirty bombs because it shows the absurdity of your arguments. You may say well we need an amendment to outlaw that. However, that would be bogus also. If you believe the second amendment is a God given right and that suitcase nukes are covered under that right, then no government has the ability to take that right away. If you say citizens are not allowed to have suitcase nukes or make dirty bombs, then you are admitting that there are limits on the owning of arms. It’s just a question of what the limits are.

Please respond to this or go away. Because you have no argument with your absurd and specious arguments...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The Constitution authorizes the citizen to own, in this instance, the "fully-armed warship", for the primary purpose of defense against piracy (and for all lawful purposes)"

And this is still done today. There are private companys owned by one person (including Blackwater) who are helping out with the Pirates in the Gulf of Aden. For more information, read this article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/blackwater-gunboats-will-protect-ships-1024582.html

[Favor Center]

“In this case a dirty bomb.”

Just to add a little accuracy to your sob story, a “dirty bomb” contains radioactive materials.

“Please respond to this or go away. Because you have no argument with your absurd and specious arguments...”

You’ve limited the 2nd Amendment to ONLY light infantry select fire rifles and handguns and you claimed authority from Tench Coxe to do it and then you actually say WE have the specious argument?

[Dead Corpse]

What you refuse to even contemplate is that without Federal infringement of RKBA, they never would have raided Waco to begin with. McVeigh would have had no trigger event to set him off.

Also, all those laws had ZERO effect on Timothy setting off the bomb anyway. Last I checked, it is also illegal to fly a perfectly legal plane into someone else's buildings. This not only makes you Constitutionally illiterate, it makes you fail the logic test on an Epic scale.

Look, I'm sorry the thought of real freedom and Constitutionally limited government scares the piss out of you. Why don't you lobby for an Amendment and get Nukes restricted the RIGHT way?

[Favor Center]

“Why don’t you lobby for an Amendment and get Nukes restricted the RIGHT way?”

I suggested that earlier. He wasn’t interested. Apparently, the “living Constitution” idea is just SO much easier.....

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Why don't you lobby for an Amendment and get Nukes restricted the RIGHT way?"

As I stated, if as you claim that nukes are covered by the second amendment and that the second amendment is a God given right enumerated by the constitution, how can the government take that right away? Not through the amendment process or any other way. No government can take away mans God given right.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I suggested that earlier. He wasn’t interested. Apparently, the “living Constitution” idea is just SO much easier....."

See my post 127. If you truly believe that the second amendment is an enumerated right that comes from God and nukes are arms that are covered by the second amendment. Then a government cannot create an amendment to take away that God given right.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Just to add a little accuracy to your sob story, a “dirty bomb” contains radioactive materials."

And your point? Whatever you want to call Tim McVeigh's bomb, it was a homemade bomb lethal enough to blow up a building and kill a lot of people. In your second amendment world he was going about everything legally right up until he detonated the bomb. That is your position, correct?

[Favor Center]

“And your point? Whatever you want to call Tim McVeigh’s bomb, it was a homemade bomb lethal enough to blow up a building and kill a lot of people.”

My point is that just like the Letter of Marque discussion, your grasp of detail is limited. McVeigh did not have a dirty bomb. That is a specific term used to describe a bomb used to spread radioactivity over a large area.

“In your second amendment world he was going about everything legally right up until he detonated the bomb. “

Fertilizer and deisel are legal, are they not? You want to ban that too? Register farmers?

[Favor Center]

I think I see his problem. Like the gun grabber, he conflates mere possibility of possession with use.

[Dead Corpse]

ONE LAST TIME MORON!!!!

Show us where in the Constitution is gives the FedGov the power to regulate NUKES.

IT ISN'T THERE. IT'S A COMPLETELY NEW THING. THERE IS A PROCESS FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!!!

Do all the caps finally get it through that thickened skull of yours? Until that Amendment is signed into law, the FedGov has no legit power to regulate the industry. PERIOD.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Fertilizer and deisel are legal, are they not?"

In your limited understanding perhaps you did not know that buying mass quantities of fertilizer such as required to make a homemade bomb is illegal. It is a controlled item for this reason. It is illegal to make a homemade bomb. That is the whole point. You want to get buried into the minutia because you can't argue the general point. You don't want to have to admit that yeah, perhaps bombs of this magnitude are not covered under the 2nd amendment.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Ah, I see. Now the anger and frustration and name calling are coming out.

"IT ISN'T THERE. IT'S A COMPLETELY NEW THING"

So are tomohawk cruise missles. So are tanks. So are bazookas. Yet these are all considered arms and in your second amendment world. We citizens should be allowed to have them. I have presented you with a cunundrum and you are getting angry because it doesn't fit your world view. You have three choices of which neither of you have taken yet.

1. Admit that I am correct that the founding fathers never imagined things as powerful and deadly as nukes, dirty bombs etc. That these are not the arms that the founders were talking about. That the second amendment is an enumerated right to protect our God given natural right of self defense against man and tyranical governments. That these type of "arms" are not for that purpose and therefore not covered under the second amendment.

2. Admit that these are covered by the second amendment and we should all be allowed to own them. In that case, you are certifiable and no sane person would want to listen to your argument about how we should be able to own nukes if we could afford them.

3. Admit these are covered by the second amendment and be for repealing these specific "arms" with another amendment. In that case, if you are admitting that these "arms" fall under the second amendment, then you are admitting that our second amendment rights do not come from God, but from government. Because if the government can repeal parts of the second amendment, then by definition this right comes from the government. That means in some future amendment push, they can further define arms in the second amendment to mean no handguns, etc...

There are no other choices besides the three above. That is why you are getting frustrated. I have backed you into one of these positions and you don't want to admit to number 1 and that I'm correct. Go on, call me names, but the point still stands. Pick one of the above...

[Gilbo_3]

2. Admit that these are covered by the second amendment and we should all be allowed to own them. In that case, you are certifiable and no sane person would want to listen to your argument about how we should be able to own nukes if we could afford them.

how about, since the power of government is given by the People, and the 2A RIGHT is the 'teeth' of the Peoples freedom from tyranny [ya know, foreign AND domestic], the government cannot [should not] possibly have power that the people didnt first have to give...

so, if yer opinion is that the people shouldnt have all the tools of war, then neither should the gov...

if thats your stance, then you are the cerifiable one ...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"how about, since the power of government is given by the People, and the 2A RIGHT is the 'teeth' of the Peoples freedom from tyranny [ya know, foreign AND domestic], the government cannot [should not] possibly have power that the people didnt first have to give..."

No, the people give this power to the government. Just like the many other powers they give to the government. I agree with that. So what you are saying is that you are in the camp that everyone should be legally allowed to own a nuke (option number 2). Great, we got one certifiable. See Chrissy Mathews, I'm sure he'd love to have you on his show so he can paint all gun owners as a bunch of nutjobs.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"so, if yer opinion is that the people shouldnt have all the tools of war, then neither should the gov..."

BTW, that quote from Tenche Cox was tools of the soldier, not war. The power to make war is a power given to the government.

[Dead Corpse]

I have presented you with a cunundrum...

No. You've created a strawman and think you are clever. In reality, you are just another Constitutional illiterate trying to play out of their league.

Stay in the Minors, you don't have what it takes.

For the record, #2 is the Constitutional answer.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"For the record, #2 is the Constitutional answer."

For the record, it is not the constitutional answer and you are a nutjob. Please apply to Chrissy Mathews show so he can show all second amendment supporters as whackos that want to own nukes. He'd love to have you on.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"No. You've created a strawman"

From my days of rhetoric class in college I know that a strawman argument is when you misrepresent an opponents position and go on to attack that position. Where have I misrepresented your position? Your position is number 2, you have admitted to such. You just did not want to admit to it and I merely forced you to make a choice.