PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

....you do realize the NFA '34 was literally taken almost word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the early 30's, right?

I'd hope so, given your user handle.

I'd also hope you realize that the control enacted (illegally) by Congress with the adoption of NFA '34 - at the behest of the FBI (huh...seems as if it has been corrupt since the birth of that agency, but I digress) has done nothing but open the door for continual erosion of rights and essentially placed a poll tax on the ability to own certain types of weapons. Would love to see it applied to the 1st amendment or the 15th amendment today, just so I could sit back and watch the fireworks.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

....you do realize the NFA '34 was literally taken almost word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the early 30's, right?

I'd hope so, given your user handle.

I'd also hope you realize that the control enacted (illegally) by Congress with the adoption of NFA '34 - at the behest of the FBI (huh...seems as if it has been corrupt since the birth of that agency, but I digress) has done nothing but open the door for continual erosion of rights and essentially placed a poll tax on the ability to own certain types of weapons. Would love to see it applied to the 1st amendment or the 15th amendment today, just so I could sit back and watch the fireworks.

---

I'm noticing a trend here. No one can seem to bring themselves to say, "Yes, people should be able to buy nukes."

I'm getting a lot of words but never that one sentence stating support for personal nuke ownership. Wonder why?

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

....you do realize the NFA '34 was literally taken almost word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the early 30's, right?

I'd hope so, given your user handle.

I'd also hope you realize that the control enacted (illegally) by Congress with the adoption of NFA '34 - at the behest of the FBI (huh...seems as if it has been corrupt since the birth of that agency, but I digress) has done nothing but open the door for continual erosion of rights and essentially placed a poll tax on the ability to own certain types of weapons. Would love to see it applied to the 1st amendment or the 15th amendment today, just so I could sit back and watch the fireworks.

---

I'm noticing a trend here. No one can seem to bring themselves to say, "Yes, people should be able to buy nukes."

I'm getting a lot of words but never that one sentence stating support for personal nuke ownership. Wonder why?

---

I said it on the previous page.

Then asked you a question, which you haven't answered. I"m noticing a trend here....

I'm noticing you skipped right over my reply. We should be able to own anything imaginable. If the U.S. Government owns it, we should be able to own it. That includes nukes. I do not trust our government anymore than I trust some crazy ass like Soros.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

....you do realize the NFA '34 was literally taken almost word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the early 30's, right?

I'd hope so, given your user handle.

I'd also hope you realize that the control enacted (illegally) by Congress with the adoption of NFA '34 - at the behest of the FBI (huh...seems as if it has been corrupt since the birth of that agency, but I digress) has done nothing but open the door for continual erosion of rights and essentially placed a poll tax on the ability to own certain types of weapons. Would love to see it applied to the 1st amendment or the 15th amendment today, just so I could sit back and watch the fireworks.

---

I'm noticing a trend here. No one can seem to bring themselves to say, "Yes, people should be able to buy nukes."

I'm getting a lot of words but never that one sentence stating support for personal nuke ownership. Wonder why?

---

I said it on the previous page.

Then asked you a question, which you haven't answered. I"m noticing a trend here....

---

Your question as to the cost of a B61? Who knows as it's not for sale. Which is kind of my point. It is not and should not be open for purchase.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

No. I would not. Nukes are not individual arms.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

country said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

SO, would you support a law that allowed any citizen to pop down to the local gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb with its 400kt yield?

---

---

---

---

---

Sure.

Now, tell me what the cost of a B61 nuke is.

---

Wiki says

Quote:

---

According to the Federation of American Scientists in 2012, the roughly 400 B61-12s will cost $28 million apiece.

---

Of course, that's just the cost of production. Once they got out on the free market, the price would be bid higher.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

You realize that is actually (theoretically) possible right now, right? You can get the NFA approval you need to own the device but its not like you can waltz into your local Raytheon dealership and pick up a shiny new Patriot missile.

---

Get approval? From whom? Are you saying that certain weapons systems are controlled and regulated? Sounds like maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to control certain weapons.

---

....you do realize the NFA '34 was literally taken almost word for word from the Nazi gun control laws of the early 30's, right?

I'd hope so, given your user handle.

I'd also hope you realize that the control enacted (illegally) by Congress with the adoption of NFA '34 - at the behest of the FBI (huh...seems as if it has been corrupt since the birth of that agency, but I digress) has done nothing but open the door for continual erosion of rights and essentially placed a poll tax on the ability to own certain types of weapons. Would love to see it applied to the 1st amendment or the 15th amendment today, just so I could sit back and watch the fireworks.

---

I'm noticing a trend here. No one can seem to bring themselves to say, "Yes, people should be able to buy nukes."

I'm getting a lot of words but never that one sentence stating support for personal nuke ownership. Wonder why?

---

I said it on the previous page.

Then asked you a question, which you haven't answered. I"m noticing a trend here....

---

Here, I did the work for you.

The cost of a B61 nuke is approximately $8.25 Billion. That's a metric crap ton of cash, so the list of people that could "just pop into their neighborhood gun shop and buy one" is pretty fuggin small. The list of neighborhood gun shops that could buy one to resell is pretty fuggin small as well.

So, even if one could afford to buy one off the shelf...I'm not particularly worried, because the list of people that could do so is very, very small and they aren't the type that are going to buy one just to detonate it for fun either.

Kind of like the people that can afford to buy a tank aren't the type that are then going to take that tank and start blowing stuff up just because. I'm far more concerned with the gang banger who spends $100 on a stolen hi-point walking around unmolested because the LEO's either are afraid of a lawsuit or think that an expired inspection sticker is a far more pressing issue.

So, now that we are done with that exercise in nothingness, move along.

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

No. I would not. Nukes are not individual arms.

---

I agree. That's all I'm saying. I for one believe the 2A is a solid amendment and needs to be respected. However, some weapons, ie. nukes, etc. are not covered by the 2A.




,

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

No. I would not. Nukes are not individual arms.

---

Neither are Howizters...yet had it not been for private ownership of artillery, the Continental Army would not have lasted as long as they did when they fought the limeys.

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

For 400 units.

Does not include the extra $1.3B for the precision guidance tail kit.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately this speaks to the outdated nature of the 2nd Amendment. The founders, in not having knowledge of where tech/science would take weapon systems,

---

I guarantee you that these guys could foresee a repeating rifle.

A Phalanx Weapons System, no. But a repeating rifle? You think this idea was beyond Ben Franklin?

---

Perhaps they had a concept of such repeating rifles coming into play.

However, that's not what I am speaking about. I mentioned nukes and that people don't need access to them.

And I'd guess city/nation killers were beyond the ability of founders to perceive.

---

A nuke could only be considered a defensive weapon at the nation/state level.

---

Again, not speaking to nations and states. We're discussing individual ownership of weapons.

As I asked another poster… would you support the ability of a citizen to hop down to a gun shop and purchase a B61 nuclear bomb. A weapon system capable of decimating the city of Kansas City.

---

No. I would not. Nukes are not individual arms.

---

I agree. That's all I'm saying. I for one believe the 2A is a solid amendment and needs to be respected. However, some weapons, ie. nukes, etc. are not covered by the 2A.




,

---

What weapons similar to weapons that an infantryman might carry should not be allowed in your opinion?

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

For 400 units.

Does not include the extra $1.3B for the precision guidance tail kit.

---

Ahh, I didn't read far enough. My bad.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Does it matter? You'd be good with Zuckerberg, Soros, Gates or radical groups with large bank accounts buying a nuke?

---

Because our government officials are much better people and less dangerous?

Hell, our government drives policy from those individuals ($$$$) so they (Soros, Gates, etc) basically indirectly do have one....

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

Why do you need two shotguns and three rifles to hunt? Isn't a Spear just as good?

Doc Hayworth said:

---

Why do you need two shotguns and three rifles to hunt? Isn't a Spear just as good?

---

Just spear.

The Founding Cavemen could never had foreseen the atlatl when they authorized the spear.

They certainly never envisioned mounted Comanches firing their Assault bows at a rate of 10-20 in a minute, when the government of the time only had single shot rifles with a fire rate of 1-2 shots per minute.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

---

But you are using this claim to say that guns should have stricter regulations which is idiotic to compare the two.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

---

But you are using this claim to say that guns should have stricter regulations which is idiotic to compare the two.

---

Please point out where I've called for stricter gun regs.

At this point I just want to buy multiples to piss off libs even more.

Too bad we can't nuke the past two pages of pointless discussion on nuclear bomb ownership

I think where people are jumping on you a bit is where you basically state that the 2A should either be amended or that we should deny access to certain weapons......how do you draw the line and who makes that call and then do you, in doing so, defeat part of the basis of the 2A which would allow for a government with far greater military power than its people leaving them unable to defend themselves and break from tyranny...

Two reasons: (1) I want one, and (2) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Pretty simple.

American Hardwood said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

---

The reason there is reluctance responding to you is because your argument strategy is an obvious setup. Those like you propose such a ridiculous scenarios like this to try to get 2A supporters to step in this ridiculous trap so you can say there should be limits cuz MuH NuKeS.

The 2A is a statement of philosophy towards entrusting the people to overthrow the government by whatever means they can arm themselves, without limit. It is very easy to understand. Therefore the 2A does support the idea of owning a nuke. Same goes for tanks, fighter jets, submarines or whatever if those are necessary to overthrowing the government. The beauty is, it is up to the people to decide what is necessary, not the government. There is the small problem of finding someone to sell you a nuke though.

But people with common sense also understand that owning and deploying a nuke is a practical impossibility so it really isn't an issue, and your argument is 100% a straw man.

---

That's an impressive theory. However, it has one huge flaw. I don't support gun control. It won't work and I, like many, see the "problem" we face as one of mental health not one of guns.

However, stating people should have nukes because to do otherwise points to the flaws of the 2A is the equivalent of a child holding their breath and covering their ears when faced with something that upsets them. It's a silly lie that does nothing to deal with the issue at hand.
And ultimately one has to ask, "if you have to lie to prove your point then perhaps your point isn't worth making".

So nothing else from OP???

Doc Hayworth said:

---

Why do you need two shotguns and three rifles to hunt? Isn't a Spear just as good?

---

or even better yet, just a pointy rock. The fully automatic stick attached to a sharpened rock should only be in the possession of the lead Ooga-Boogas, not the commoner Ooga-Boogas.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

---

The reason there is reluctance responding to you is because your argument strategy is an obvious setup. Those like you propose such a ridiculous scenarios like this to try to get 2A supporters to step in this ridiculous trap so you can say there should be limits cuz MuH NuKeS.

The 2A is a statement of philosophy towards entrusting the people to overthrow the government by whatever means they can arm themselves, without limit. It is very easy to understand. Therefore the 2A does support the idea of owning a nuke. Same goes for tanks, fighter jets, submarines or whatever if those are necessary to overthrowing the government. The beauty is, it is up to the people to decide what is necessary, not the government. There is the small problem of finding someone to sell you a nuke though.

But people with common sense also understand that owning and deploying a nuke is a practical impossibility so it really isn't an issue, and your argument is 100% a straw man.

---

That's an impressive theory. However, it has one huge flaw. I don't support gun control. It won't work and I, like many, see the "problem" we face as one of mental health not one of guns.

However, stating people should have nukes because to do otherwise points to the flaws of the 2A is the equivalent of a child holding their breath and covering their ears when faced with something that upsets them. It's a silly lie that does nothing to deal with the issue at hand.
And ultimately one has to ask, "if you have to lie to prove your point then perhaps your point isn't worth making".

---

What did he lie about? The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrranical government. Its entirely illogical to then suggest "yeah, but the founders would be cool with the government having bigger and better weapons than the citizenry". It undermines the entire reason behind the 2A.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

B61 $8.25 Billion Cost

---

Chump change for Soros and Gates. And with nukes readily available on the market I'm sure no nation state would use ulterior means to head to a Nukes R' Us store in the US and get their hands on one.

Again, nukes in the free market is incredibly stupid. And I have a feeling you agree with me but you're so blinded by "muh gun rights" that your blinded to common sense.

---

Well, if your overlord the government was doing it's job...then other nation states wouldn't be ablet o just waltz into Nukes 'R Us and buy one, now would they?

This is a stupid ass argument, I'm bored with it.

---

100% agree. Very stupid.

The notion I had to waste an hour of my life explaining to graduates of Texas A&M that private ownership of nukes is an incredibly bad idea is actually quite sad.

---

No, the idea that you are trying to make an outrageously idiotic argument says more about you graduating from A&M.

Nukes are nothing like guns.
Nukes are hella expensive and have the potential to kill millions with 1 weapon.
Guns are much cheaper and a significantly smaller chance to that man people per weapon.

Your argument and logic is flawed.

---

You proved my point. Thanks.

Nukes can kill millions. Nukes are nothing like guns. Theses are your comments. Thus, for some to claim they are protected by the 2A is ridiculous. Thanks for seeing the light on this.

---

The reason there is reluctance responding to you is because your argument strategy is an obvious setup. Those like you propose such a ridiculous scenarios like this to try to get 2A supporters to step in this ridiculous trap so you can say there should be limits cuz MuH NuKeS.

The 2A is a statement of philosophy towards entrusting the people to overthrow the government by whatever means they can arm themselves, without limit. It is very easy to understand. Therefore the 2A does support the idea of owning a nuke. Same goes for tanks, fighter jets, submarines or whatever if those are necessary to overthrowing the government. The beauty is, it is up to the people to decide what is necessary, not the government. There is the small problem of finding someone to sell you a nuke though.

But people with common sense also understand that owning and deploying a nuke is a practical impossibility so it really isn't an issue, and your argument is 100% a straw man.

---

That's an impressive theory. However, it has one huge flaw. I don't support gun control. It won't work and I, like many, see the "problem" we face as one of mental health not one of guns.

However, stating people should have nukes because to do otherwise points to the flaws of the 2A is the equivalent of a child holding their breath and covering their ears when faced with something that upsets them. It's a silly lie that does nothing to deal with the issue at hand.
And ultimately one has to ask, "if you have to lie to prove your point then perhaps your point isn't worth making".

---

What did he lie about? The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrranical government. Its entirely illogical to then suggest "yeah, but the founders would be cool with the government having bigger and better weapons than the citizenry". It undermines the entire reason behind the 2A.

---

The lie is a person stating, "I believe people should be able to buy nukes" when in reality the person doesn't believe this but won't say otherwise because to do so somehow weakens the 2A.

And to be fair, we have allowed government that control (Nukes) as the government is there in large part for defense. However, as I see how corrupt and powerful our government has become, cannot get on board with further legislation to say government can have "luxury" weapons while we can only get "base"'options and put us further behind.