So /k/, how do I respond to anti-gunners asking if I think we should have nukes?
While I don't think anyone should have them, even governments, if I say that I'll just look like a hypocrit
But how do I argue that? Just saying those aren't the same won't make them back off that
Not too mention it can be used to poke a hole in saying civs should be able have everything the military does
Just say that you think the English language should be destroyed and that everybody should have nuke firing mechs.
Nukes are not considered Arms, they are considered WoMD.
This does not do anything against the argument of being allowed to bear the same arms as the military. The difference between a Nuke and an AR is the difference between a dinghy and an aircraft carrier. You wouldn't say that because somebody cannot be trusted to own an Aircraft Carrier that they then cannot be trusted to own a dinghy, that's absurd.
Of course, you could just say one is designed to destroy a city, the other is designed to destroy a person.
It's 3AM I have no good answers for you. Just tell them they are retarded and mention the comparison in force.
>oh, so you like kickboxing? I bet you think its okay to beat people to death with a hammer.
>oh, you are christian? I bet you think the world is only centuries old.
>you dont like syrian refugees? I bet you are some sort of racist skin head who worships hitler!
Slippery slope fallacy, they take the absolute worst thing that could happen or the utterly most extreme example and try to connect it to the mundane in an attempt to insinuate that if what you want is allowed then that (usually over the top absurdly negative) scenario is the logical end result, or that because you support it, then you are no different than the (again, absurdly negative and scary) extremists.
Instead of taking the bait by looking like a bumbling idiot as you try to argue against a fallacy based arguement, just point the simple fact out that while thier arguement is emotionally provocative, it is in fact, nonsense.
"Assuming that because I support civilian gun ownership means that i also think weapons of mass destruction should be privateley owned is absurd and has no bearing on the issue at all. Nobody who owns guns believes that they are entitled to own things like anthrax, sarin, or nuclear warheads, they believe that they are entitled by the bill of rights to own weapons capable of use in defense against dangerous criminals as well as the sort of men who DO control such horrific devices, and the thugs who work for them. The fact of the matter is that our military posesses weapons capable of rendering our species extinct, and are only held back by the fact that you cannot control and exploit the dead. Our weapons enable us to negate the most blatant attempts at control, if not by killing the thugs they might send, then atleast force them to kill us, and thus fail in thier objective. Plus it kills them niggers n jews real good"
There are a lot of people a lot smarterer than us here who have written about this. You should probably read them first.
>Nobody who owns guns believes that they are entitled to own things like anthrax, sarin, or nuclear warheads
I beg to differ. I believe individuals should have unrestricted and unregulated access to weapons. At the very least they should have unrestricted access up to the same kind of armaments their military has. Think of a sovereign nation without a military. They have no clout, no leverage on an international scale. It's too easy to subjugate a disarmed populace, and even if it is the intention of no one it will happen passively. When you have to deal with MAD, actual negotiation can occur where equal footing truly exists.
Speaking in absolutes, especially in debate, is asking for trouble.
No, nuclear weapons are definitely arms. Look up the definition of the word "armament" and explain to me how they do not fit that definition.
They should be permitted for individual ownership.
MAD only means something when the participants care about keeping themselves alive. If a legit suicidal crazy person got a nuke, with all the industry to support it, what would deter them from killing millions of people?
you can be specific with a firearm in it's targeting, shooting at the bad guy you mean to. a nuke is indiscriminate in it's targeting, it destroys everything in a 20 mile radius. if the person you are arguing with cant see the difference between a nuke and a firearm, move on, they are too retarded or stubbornly antigun to accept logic
What about crazy motherfuckers who want to take a ton of people with them when they off themselves? With a nuke they could take a whole fucking city down
And idiots shoot themselves or their buddy accidentally all the time, you want dumbass mcinbred to accidentally release sarin on his neighborhood because he was dicking around while drunk off his ass?
You're just on a whole other level of retarded, man
Me. Or you. Anyone and everyone with the capability to stop them.
As for how it would be stopped, well there are as many ways as you can imagine. We can talk about ABMs if you want.
It might not bother you if you are deceiving yourself to believe that nuclear weapons are not arms, but you were making the same argument commonly used against civilian ownership of firearms.
>If a legit suicidal crazy person got a gun
Nah. That's wrong. What is the difference between strategic and tactical weapons? You might be surprised to learn what kind of nuclear armaments are out there. They're just like TNT in terms of yield, but far more potent per unit mass. Think of it that way.
IOW, when dealing with that level of potential destruction, its less about right and wrong and more about the power dynamics. How is it legal for one nation to keep another nation from aquiring nukes? Because of the "we'll bomb the shit out of you" principal. The legality of it is an afterthought.
You're missing something fundamental here. You don't understand the weapons you want to regulate. Sound familiar?
If you think it's easy to deploy and difficult to detect WMDs, you'd be horribly wrong.
A nuke is an indiscriminate weapon, meaning it kills masses of people at a time without regard of who they are. A rifle is used to kill each person it is aimed at intently. So if you are defending yourself or your home you wouldn't use a nuke. A nuke is only a weapon in defense of a nation to use against or deter a hostile attacking force.
That is why individuals should not own nukes.
pretty simple. Look at the definition of "arms" according to the guys who wrote the constitution, as well as the purpose. The purpose was so that the people would have the weapons necessary to resist tyranny. Nukes certainly don't fall under that.
not to mention you can just tell them to stfu because it's a slippery-slope fallacy. Like the other guy said, just go the opposite direction. Say that we should also ban knives and sticks and bats and golf clubs because they are dangerous.
That's also why I would like my automatic weapons.
A militia couldn't possibly resist a tyrannical US government with the kinds of weapons civilians can own, or the training civilians can get.
Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, where the main bad guy rides around on a motorcyle with a stolen russian nuke in the sidecar. The nuke has a deadmans switch wired to his vital signs.
When he comes in town, the government makes sure he has a really nice time with no problems.
if you want to get anal an old fashioned a-bomb was a gun
>fired a uranium bullet into a block of uranium at the right speed to dislodge electrons and cause devistation
a bunch of goat fuckers with AKs and IEDs were able to provide a challenge for the US military. Logically speaking, a bunch of rednecks and /k/ommandos with ARs and AKs and actual experience shooting could also put up a challenge.
Insurgency is a bitch.
Nah. There's an astounding presence of civil disarmament logic in here.
Weapons aren't sentient.
Different yields of nuclear weapons exist. Look up the difference between strategic and tactical weapons.
>used to kill...aimed at intently
That's not how small arms or intent works.
Why wouldn't you use a nuclear weapon? How large is your home? How numerous is the intruder?
>nation, hostile attacking force
Sounds a lot like the situation at my home.
They should not be restricted. Acquisition of a WMD doesn't "just happen" either. There's no way to hide the industry necessary. You can't just make nerve agents in your trailer home.
>without implementing thoughtcrime
Never passed my mind.
How is the payload being delivered? I could draft a flowchart, but just writing is easier.
>the weapons necessary to resist tyranny. Nukes certainly don't fall under that.
Oh, but they do. Tell me what the definition of "arms" is.
Asymmetrical warfare is quite simple.
This, though completely unrelated, is a personal favorite argument against nuclear disarmament. Be it aliens or large, belligerent space rocks.
I still remember what one gun rights advocate said on West Virginia public TV when asked the same question. He responded with saying we should have the right to own the same weapons the police use to protect themselves and asking about nukes is deflecting from the issue.
Nah. You might want to check the Bill of Rights. The word choice is "arms" and it's not up for debate. There's no discussion of intent here. Those documents were made to be foolproof and they are. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant.
You could of course read supporting documents of the time to get a sense of the Framers' mindset (such as the Federalist Papers). Or you could grossly skim over the history of this nation's founding and simply infer why they made this nation the way they did. I know that's too much to ask, but keep it in mind.
first of all, this question is something the founders of USA struggled with constantly. no, they didnt know what nukes were yet, but in writing the constitution they were constantly debating the liberty of the people vs the security necessary to keep the state functioning in order to provide stately services to the people. this could be a 1,000 page dissertation but the tl;dr /k/ version:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
if you look up the definition of "arms" in a period dictionary of the 1700s, it comes out to "weapons of offense or armour of defense"
so at first glance it might appear that anything is on the table in terms of weaponry. but if you read the entire constitution, it becomes clear that america has gone off the rails a long time ago in how it conducts its national defense. the united states is supposed to be a country ruled and run by the people. section 8 of the constitution gives congress the right to "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
so america is not supposed to even have a standing army. if you keep reading section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
the idea of national security when america was created was that the nation would be primarily defended by the militia, and the militia would be trained and equipped according to the laws of congress...
>comment too long 1/2
If a private citizen can afford one, and comply with all the requirements imposed by the various oversight agencies for upkeep, storage, etc. then I imagine you could, much to the delight of your neighbors.
You'd have to build it or import it though, as the USA doesn't exactly sell old nukes as surplus, and the outlets one might have to purchase a nuclear weapon may land you in prison just for making the attempt.
This means, even for the hyper-wealthy, it is realistically impossible, but in principle... why not.
Okay i admit my ignorance. I always thought of Ordinance being cannons/explosives... things that would be used by multiple persons as a way of causing a large amount of damage to people and or structures. Where as i saw 'arms' being something a single combatant used to engage other single combatants. I apologize for my wrongness and would appreciate some clarification if you dont mind.
The agencies involved would not be overseeing/"infringing" on anything to do with its capacity as a weapon. It's all to do with the keeping of radioactive materials.
If anything, they'd probably want that motherfucker in tip-top condition, because it's safer that way.
>Does make me wonder if you'd still need an ATF tax stamp after all the other hoops and requirements...
Not that poster, but, back inna day, civilians kept cannon/mortars, and there were privately-owned warships and such, so draw whatever conclusions on you like from that, with regard to intent.
I believe there are some modern artillery pieces in private hands, albeit with ATF approval...
That'd be a hell of a thing to do at a BBQ.
"Grab a burger, we're gonna shell a 1983 Chevy Nova parked on the hillside over there!"
And, combining artillery with OP's nuclear thing...
It has come full circle.
Do you think that nukes would be sold in walmart for 39.99 or something? Shit would be ridiculously expensive just to buy, not to mention store and maintain, and only ridiculously rich people could ever afford even one.
You have to use blazingly obvious logic while simultaneously calling attention to their ridiculous analogies.
Instead of saying "a WMD is not the same as a gun", which is defensive, you should say "Why would you think to compare a weapon of mass destruction to a simple gun?"
The problem you have is that you don't realize you won't "win" an emotionally charged argument with an idiot. You can, however, ruin their day by making them frustrated beyond their ability to be self-righteous.