Matthews Challenges 2nd Amendment Advocate Over…Bazookas?

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

[Dead Corpse]

But go ahead and keep insulting me for that "ludicrus" position.

Ok. I will. Especially since you still haven't shown where in the Constitution is gives the Fedgov the power to regulate nukes. You tried making an Art 1 Sec 8 argument that used the same logic they are currently using to expand Commerce powers to mean literally anything. This is an Epic Fail by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, if you want to see some "mass destruction", watch a full broadside by 15-20 32-pounder cannons.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Oh, as to owning private cannons. Again some of that is allowed. How much I’m not sure. For proof, read this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-09-04-cannon-shot-hits-house_N.htm?csp=15

From the article he was charged with criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. If there was a charge for stupidity I’m sure that would have been filed also. However, he was not charged with owning an illegal cannon. It was legal.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You know, we’re going over the same old ground. You don’t want to accept the argument. Fine. You’re welcome to believe that owning nukes is allowed by the 2A per our founders. Because I don’t believe that, I guess I’m a gun grabber. Believe what you want. It’s a waste of time and energy to argue the same points.

[Gilbo_3]

so, I post the evidence of your flawed ability to lie your way outts your own posted words, then i move on to the citizen/soldier, as an indiviidual, and you reach further back to talk about boats and accuse me of being deceitful...

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on naivete before, now, I must simply consider you to be a statist who believes that he will be the last one to be eaten by the tyranny he supports...

may your chains rest lightly...

[Dead Corpse]

You’re welcome to believe that owning nukes is allowed by the 2A per our founders.

Still the wrong way to look at it.

Nothing in the Constitution PREVENTS it as the FedGov was never GIVEN that power. Remember? "All power inherent in We the People"? The Constitution is the contract that We use to give Them power. Any power not listed is expressly forbidden. Any Rights made off limits are expressly OFF LIMITS.

No. You are only a "gun grabber" in this regard as you are using the same logic they are to uphold your position. For all I know you could be tenderly polishing that new Kimber Ultra-Carry II in between postings.

It's your principles I have an issue with.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Yeah, I’m a statist. Everyone should own nukes. Whatever... You won’t own up to your own words...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Its no use going over the same ole ground. We can agree to disagree. And I unfortunately do not have a Kimber Ultra-Carry II but my Dad does. I’ve fired it before and it’s nice...

[tarheelswamprat]

I have no wish to denigrate you or anyone else, and I freely acknowledge my own limitations. And, I did read the other posts and felt that you were the one “pushing” a little too hard. My forceful response was based on that. It’s clear from your courteous reply to me now that we can have a reasonable discussion, and I thank you for that.

Getting back to the main point, however, about the constitutional aspects of what “arms” people have a right to own, you are still off-base. Please understand, this is not a slam on you. You’re in good company because you, along with millions of other well-intentioned folks have been suckered into one of the slickest sophistries ever perpetrated by the anti-gun, anti-self-defense crowd.

The problem is that regardless of the literal logic of the actual text of the Constitution, because the issue has been so thoroughly demonized it is no longer possible to address it solely in legal and logical terms. The nuclear weapons sophistry is emotionally-based and requires an emotional rebuttal (albeit one based on logic).

How so? Well for example, consider the following strategy. When they hit you with “Do you mean to say you think people should have a right to own nuclear weapons?”. If you say yes they immediately ridicule you as being “crazy”. Of course none of us wants to be thought of as crazy, so we sheepishly hang our heads and concede the point. This argument is regularly used by the opponents of freedom as a sort of ultimate trump card, when it is in fact the “crazy” argument.

The correct response when they attempt to crow in self-congratulatory triumph is to forcefully tell them “What planet are you on? The rest of us are stuck here on planet Earth, and on planet Earth the only ones who pose a threat with nuclear weapons are hostile nations and the terrorists they might supply with nuclear weapons.”

Then I continue with “Suppose we accept that individuals have the right to own nuclear weapons(or F-18s, etc.). So what? Who can make them? Who can afford them? The only ones who can are those same nation states or the terrorists they provide them to. Private individuals simply don’t have the means. I don’t know what planet you’re on, but the rest of us here on planet Earth aren’t going to rush out and try to acquire nuclear weapons even if its legal for the simple reason that we don’t have the means and even if we did they’re not suitable for the purposes we need to keep and bear arms - defending our lives and property. Furthermore, the people who do desire them aren’t going to care whether they illegal or not.”

I always finish with “Of course you knew full well when you asked your question that it was a sham and a red herring. In the real world, on planet Earth, there is no threat of private citizens wanting to keep and bear arms to defend themselves rushing out to acquire nuclear weapons. You aren’t worried about it either because you know the entire issue is a sham. All you care about is getting people to give you or people like you the authority to decide for them what YOU will allow them to have. You aren’t really worried about nuclear weapons. You’re only interested in waiting periods, in restrictive license, permit or fee policies, or any other hoops to jump through you can think up to impede people from acquiring the practical, common-sense weapons they need to defend themselves”.

************************

I realize that was a long read, but it was necessary to present it in terms of a forceful dialogue encounter with someone making this argument. As the above dialogue shows, when I have to make this case I do it forcefully and aggressively, because I understand that the other side is not interested in an honest debate. They’re attempting to emotionally manipulate people so I have no qualms about ridiculing and humiliating them. This approach is particularly effective in a crowd.

I ask you to think about it. Try to detach from the completely understandable reaction to to the emotionally deceptive approach of the “nuclear weapons” tactic. That argument isn’t really about nuclear weapons, or any other specific types of weapons - it’s about who has the power to decide.

If the Supreme Court were to rule today that the 2nd Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons, absolutely nothing would change, in the REAL world, on planet Earth. It is a fake issue, a fraud. Deep down you know that to be true.

However, if we continue on the present course of allowing the enemies of individual freedom to define what we may “reasonably” possess, they will inexorably (but quite “reasonably”, I’m sure) continue defining this down, eventually to nothing.

Thank you for your time.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"If the Supreme Court were to rule today that the 2nd Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons, absolutely nothing would change, in the REAL world, on planet Earth. It is a fake issue, a fraud. Deep down you know that to be true."

Thank you for your curteous and thoughtful reply. The reason I use the nuke argument and other weapons in that category is because no sane person thinks that individuals should be allowed to own them.

Its sort of like the old joke about a guy asking a woman if she would sleep with him for one million dollars. She says of course. Then he asks would you sleep with me for ten dollars. She replys, what do you think of me? A whore! He replies, my dear we've already established that. We're now just haggling over your price."

You are a gun grabber if you believe a nuke is an arm as defined by the 2A. It's just a question of what degree you are a gun grabber.

I submit to you to read my previous posts. If it were legal for citizens to own certain types of nukes such as suitcase nukes, there would be a market for them. There would be people in Russia or China gladly willing to supply these weapons. They may costs millions, but not out of the realm of acquiring for some American Islamic jihadi bent on topping 9/11.

My position is that a nuke is not something that could even be fathomed by our founders. Heck, it could not have been fathomed by my great grandfather, much less the founders. It is not something they would define as an arm protected by the second amendment. There are certain things called "arms" today that the founders never intended to be called arms in the 2A. Why do I say this? Look at the purpose of owning arms. The founders made it very clear as to it's reason in numerous writings outside the constitution. It is to protect oneself from others or from a tyrannical government. A nuke is not needed for that purpose.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You are a gun grabber if you believe a nuke is an arm as defined by the 2A. It's just a question of what degree you are a gun grabber."

Before the speech nazis get me. I meant to say you are a gun grabber if you believe a nuke is an arm as defined by the 2A but don't think the American people have any right to own one.

[Dead Corpse]

If the Supreme Court were to rule today that the 2nd Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons, absolutely nothing would change, in the REAL world, on planet Earth. It is a fake issue, a fraud. Deep down you know that to be true.

Epic Win!

[Dead Corpse]

Look at the purpose of owning arms.

To be well enough armed to over-throw an out-of-control government or to fight off an invader? A nuke wouldn't be handy under such circumstances?

Again... "Captain, your Fail Boat has arrived!"

One more Epic Fail on that scale and we'll promote you to Commodore.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Well, I like your picture in post #191, but just because you say I’m wrong does not make it so. Until you get elected supreme arbitar of the board that is...

[tarheelswamprat]

I have no wish to badger you OTH, so I'll keep this brief. There is, unfortunately, a cognitive disconnect in your arguments which I'm not certain you can get past. Please consider the following:

The reason I use the nuke argument and other weapons in that category is because no sane person thinks that individuals should be allowed to own them.

The reason I use the semi-automatic assault weapon argument and other weapons in that category is because no sane person thinks that individuals should be allowed to own them.

The reason I use the semi-automatic pistol argument and other weapons in that category is because no sane person thinks that individuals should be allowed to own them.

The reason I use the .50 cal rifle argument and other weapons in that category is because no sane person thinks that individuals should be allowed to own them.

Can you see the pattern? Can you connect the dots? I ask you "if the Supreme Court were to rule today that the 2nd Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to own nuclear weapons, what would change, in the REAL world, on planet Earth?"

Can you answer the question?

If you can't reason this out you are doomed to continue allowing your enemies to use you to destroy your own freedom and rights.

[Dead Corpse]

I don't have to say it. It's self evident.

For those that missed the entendre:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

[Gilbo_3]

thank you for your well planned reasoning, and for this second attempt to eliminate the ‘crazy’ strawman from the black and white wording of the Constitution...

[Favor Center]

Well said, sir. Bravo!

[Jormungandr]

Exactly. Does authority turn people moral or trustworthy?

Nein. It does not. Then why in the Hell should authorities be trusted with weapons the people (who is supposed to be able to overthrow them should they grow tyrannical) should not own?

Any advocacy of disarmament is advocating for “tyranny rights”, ie, that governmental tyranny should be made possible via limiting resistance.

(A case could be made (I’m torn on the issue) for the restriction of explosives, given that misuse, incompetent storage, a misfire or whatever can kill dozens of unintended targets, though the government should allow those who can operate and store them safely to own them.)

[Gilbo_3]

though the government should allow those who can operate and store them safely to own them.)

problem then becomes 'who' is the arbiter of safe storage and operation...FReedom isnt necessarily 'safe' in alot of ways, but desired nonetheless...

welcome to FR...

[Jormungandr]

Explosives are my point of contention. I’m torn on the issue, but when in doubt I use common sense.

I wouldn’t want my house to blow up with me inside because some moron I might have as a neighbor has been storing TNT improperly.

At the very least, owning explosives should require a safety course.

Perhaps the certification that the guy is NOT insane and knows how to store and use the stuff could be provided by independent, private organizations?