yeah, specially the only one who already used it twice on civilian population. self defense, i guess!
General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
yeah, specially the only one who already used it twice on civilian population. self defense, i guess!
I am not asking for governments. Do you feel individual citizens should be able to own these? And if not, where do you draw the line as to what weapons are allowed? And if you are talking about 'true freedom loving', doesn't that mean you should be allowed to have all possible weapons? And while we're on the topic: don't you think a 'true freedom loving' government would allow its people to smoke some pot in their own basement?
well, I didn't vote for that one, and I agree it was wrong however in that period of time it could have been anyone, the Germans was pretty close and then it would have been London or anything else that made them angry which was 70% of the planetyeah, specially the only one who already used it twice on civilian population. self defense, i guess!
They should, what people do is their business not the Government or other people. However with Nuclear you can make a lot of boom, you can't do that with even a tank. BTW you can own a tank if you want in the US.
Well, the first two, especially the second one, could be said to be intrinsic threats to others, thus violating the equal rights of others by their very existence. This isn't the case with most conventional weapons.
Uranium and plutonium are both moderately radioactive and chemically extremely toxic. Even outside of a functional nuclear weapon small quantities can poison huge numbers of people and contaminate areas for protracted periods of time. Biochemical weapons are even harder to store safely and even more indiscriminate.
I know that is why no normal person would want to own one.
Fitting standards of normality shouldn't be a requirement, nor abnormality a justification for restricting what people can do.
There should be more objective criteria.
Let me rephrase then, no logical thinking person would like to own one.
My neighbour is a socialist, we exchange words, he owns firearms, I'm ok with that, actually I support it, mostly we drink a beer and watch the women in bikinis walkaing by at the beach and talk about how tough it was when we were young, but he's a socialist so we sometimes argue.
I think that assertion would be very hard to defend if challenged in any formal context.
If I want to be free from the control of a nuclear state, it's entirely logical that having a nuclear deterrent of my own would be the most sure fire way to do this, were it within my power. Afterall, we have seventy years of precedent supporting just this sort of thing at the nation state level and it's hard to imagine states like the DPRK continuing to exist without such a deterrent in their arsenals. It's not beyond the realm of logic to extend this to individuals, given all the ways that could be used to make such a threat credible.
Regardless, people cannot be required to demonstrate the logical soundness of their decisions either. People like what they like and there is often no logical accounting for taste. IMO, that they want something should be enough, unless simply having it is an intrinsic threat to others.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Final reminder to keep the discussion on topic (and off politics).
![[VR] optimal_909](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
I hope this is not a political statement:
The freedom of having firearms is at the costs a lot of lives in the U.S., homicide rate is far higher than anywhere else. Nowhere else it can happen, that a toddler pulls a gun from his/her mother's purse and kill her by accident.
And by the way, I don't think that arms are deterrent in any form or shape against an oppressive government - perhaps it used to be, but not today.
Edit: to be on topic, I believe in human caused climate change, shame so few discuss a realistic middle-road scenario between total denial and a Thunbergeddon, in which in 50 years the Earth will turn into a desert that can be survived only by driving a solar-panel covered, armed Cybertruck.
Last edited:
- Status