Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Dec '12 02:58
    Gun zealot absurdity:

    1. arming elementary school teachers,

    2. fighting with your semi-automatic AR-15 against the US military,

    3. weird and incoherent analogies between no useful purpose assault weapons versus useful purpose other inanimate objects,

    4. preparing for the superstitous end-time prophecies,

    5. weird mischaractrerizations of the Constitution,

    6. unduly and incorrect very narrow definition of assault weapon,

    7. saying that we should only address mental health and not both mental health and reasonable gun control.
  2. 23 Dec '12 02:59
    Ronald Reagan letter to Republican House member Scott Klug in support of the 1994 ban.

    ''Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary," Reagan wrote Klug. "I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.''
  3. 23 Dec '12 03:02 / 1 edit
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    First, as a sanity issue, without even reference to a consitutional discussion, the idea of an ordinary citizens with a semi-automatic AR-15 fighting the US military is absurd. The US military would annihilate them.

    Further, based on this weird "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots, weapons such as RPGs, fully automatic weapons, and even nuclear weapons are protected by the Second Amendment for the ordinary citizen. That simply is not true. It is also not true for the semi-automatic AR-15 and high capacity clips. Their manufacture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
  4. 23 Dec '12 23:29
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    ...[text shortened]... facture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
    It is you that is absurd.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Bear obviously means carry. People can't carry nuclear weapons, most RPGs, nor most crew operated machine guns, such as a 25mm minigun, or an M60. Most ordinary people probably can't carry a Barrett .50 cal. either. If it can't be carried, it isn't covered.

    Why in the world do you post the same lame poo poo in multiple threads?
  5. 24 Dec '12 00:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is you that is absurd.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Bear obviously means carry. People can't carry nuclear weapons, most RPGs, nor most crew operated machine guns, such as a 25mm minigun, or an M60. Most ordinary people probably can't carry a Barrett .50 cal. either. If it can't be carried, it isn't covered.

    Why in the world do you post the same lame poo poo in multiple threads?
    What if you were standing on the back of a flatbed pick up holding the butt end of an M60 that was mounted on a fixed traversable tripod, could you be considered to 'bearing' that 'arm'?
  6. 24 Dec '12 00:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is you that is absurd.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Bear obviously means carry. People can't carry nuclear weapons, most RPGs, nor most crew operated machine guns, such as a 25mm minigun, or an M60. Most ordinary people probably can't carry a Barrett .50 cal. either. If it can't be carried, it isn't covered.

    Why in the world do you post the same lame poo poo in multiple threads?
    I've carried the M60 machine gun and I've also carried RPG's. The Barrett can be carried as well. I was a SAW gunner on my first deployment and carried that thing everywhere. It's not a crew served weapon, but it's fully automatic. The AK-47 is full auto and obviously can be carried. An M203, which has a 40mm grenade launcher is also easily carried.
  7. 24 Dec '12 00:33
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    What if you were standing on the back of a flatbed pick up holding the butt end of an M60 that was mounted on a fixed traversable tripod, could you be considered to 'bearing' that 'arm'?
    It doesn't matter. The M60 is easily carried.
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    24 Dec '12 00:40
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It doesn't matter. The M60 is easily carried.
    Over what distance? For how long? Because I humped one for nine days and I was ready to put it down. I don't care who you are, if you carry that weapon for nine days it gets heavy.
  9. 24 Dec '12 00:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It is you that is absurd.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Bear obviously means carry. People can't carry nuclear weapons, most RPGs, nor most crew operated machine guns, such as a 25mm minigun, or an M60. Most ordinary people probably can't carry a Barrett .50 cal. either. If it can't be carried, it isn't covered.

    Why in the world do you post the same lame poo poo in multiple threads?
    quote:
    In nuclear weapon design, there is a tradeoff in small weapons designs between weight and compact size. Extremely small (as small as 5 inches (13 cm) diameter and 24.4 inches (62 cm) long) linear implosion type weapons, which might conceivably fit in a large briefcase or typical suitcase, have been tested, but the lightest of those are nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) and had a maximum yield of only a fraction of a kiloton (190 tons).[a] The largest yield of a relatively compact linear implosion device was under 2 kilotons for the cancelled (or never deployed, but apparently tested) US W82-1 artillery shell design, with yield under 2 kilotons for a 95 pounds (43 kg) artillery shell 6.1 inches (15 cm) in diameter and 34 inches (86 cm) long.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

    Soldiers often carry packs weighing 100 pounds. A lighter bomb could easily deliver a 50 ton charge, not to mention the associated radioactive fallout.

    "Arms" generally means the equipment of warfare, including armor. At the time it would include swords and shields and suits of armor or partial body armor and bayonets.

    arm (n.2) Look up arm at Dictionary.com
    "weapon," c.1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, war, warfare," mid-13c., from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arm
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    24 Dec '12 00:46
    Originally posted by JS357
    quote:
    In nuclear weapon design, there is a tradeoff in small weapons designs between weight and compact size. Extremely small (as small as 5 inches (13 cm) diameter and 24.4 inches (62 cm) long) linear implosion type weapons, which might conceivably fit in a large briefcase or typical suitcase, have been tested, but the lightest of those are nearly 100 pound ...[text shortened]... )," from PIE root *ar- "fit, join"

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arm
    Here we go...you need a certain minimum amount of fissile uranium/plutonium to have a viable weapon. I'm not saying how much, that's up to you. There's a minimum theoretical yield to a weapon.

    And yeah, you can hump in a hundred pounds, but it's not fun after more than 25-30 km. what's your point?
  11. 24 Dec '12 01:11
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It doesn't matter. The M60 is easily carried.
    Not an expert on US Heavy machine guns, it was the potential flexibility of the term 'Bear' that I was trying to highlight, i.e is someone operating a technical mounted Gun still 'Bearing' arms.
  12. 24 Dec '12 01:24
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Here we go...you need a certain minimum amount of fissile uranium/plutonium to have a viable weapon. I'm not saying how much, that's up to you. There's a minimum theoretical yield to a weapon.

    And yeah, you can hump in a hundred pounds, but it's not fun after more than 25-30 km. what's your point?
    Note the thread title.

    Norm said "People can't carry nuclear weapons" but if inability to carry means means they aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, then they should not be banned because they can be carried. And as I said, a smaller nuke would still be devastating and weigh less than 100 pounds (and distance carried makes no difference.)
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    24 Dec '12 02:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    Note the thread title.

    Norm said "People can't carry nuclear weapons" but if inability to carry means means they aren't protected by the 2nd amendment, then they should not be banned because they [b]can
    be carried. And as I said, a smaller nuke would still be devastating and weigh less than 100 pounds (and distance carried makes no difference.)[/b]
    So I won't even address the point of being able to bear a nuclear weapon. The premise is absurd. Let's rejoin the land of the sane and real, and – that's all I have to say about this absurd, ridiculous premise.

    EDIT: the statements in the original post are so absurdly stupid, or stupidly absurd, I can't figure out which yet – that I'm just ignoring them. But at least the three consecutive posts by the same author to begin the thread were a desperate cry for attention.
  14. 25 Dec '12 17:51
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    What if you were standing on the back of a flatbed pick up holding the butt end of an M60 that was mounted on a fixed traversable tripod, could you be considered to 'bearing' that 'arm'?
    An M60 is generally operated by a crew of two. One to carry the ammo. I see that as outside of "keep and bear", but it could be arguable.
  15. 25 Dec '12 18:08
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I've carried the M60 machine gun and I've also carried RPG's. The Barrett can be carried as well. I was a SAW gunner on my first deployment and carried that thing everywhere. It's not a crew served weapon, but it's fully automatic. The AK-47 is full auto and obviously can be carried. An M203, which has a 40mm grenade launcher is also easily carried.
    There are some areas of arguability. The Barrett and other .50 BMG platforms are very heavy, and sniper teams (2 men) carry the required stuff for the Barrett to be used successfully. The spotter now carries a complicated fire control system which measures wind, barometric pressure, relative humidity, and calculates the shooters hold position. He generally also carries the coms.

    The argument is a bit off the deep end, because nobody is going to carry around a .50 BMG or M60 or SAW. If they own one, shooting it is really expensive. AK variants, I consider totally carriable, and frankly I don't agree with SCOTUS rulings making full auto weapons illegal or subject to huge licensing fees. I don't have a problem with anyone owning a grenade launcher. As with anything else, using it criminally ought to be punished.

    Other than the AK, the aforementioned are all specialize weapons systems, which are used as part of a squad or team approach to fighting, not an individual infantryman's weapon.