6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[Asher]

Do it for Apu, David.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I already said I'm not going off into a minefield that you guys will use to bait-and-switch away from the main point of gun control. I'm not stupid, come on

You made the statement:

Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property

Does this right to own whatever property you want extend to include radioisotopes, or is there some invisible line they're on the far side of?

Please stop avoiding the question. Do you know what "bait-and-switch" actually means or are you just using it for the hell of it? I don't see how it possibly applies here.

[Asher]

I would encourage Floyd to play with radioisotopes, actually.

[David Floyd]

Fine.

I don't see any moral mechanism that a government can use to restrict private ownership of a nuclear weapon. Doesn't mean I'm particularly thrilled with the idea of people toting nukes, but I can't see any way for the government to morally stop it.

However, I also don't believe that very many people would be able to own nukes. And in any case, if someone wants to use a nuke to kill a lot of people, that's hardly different from today. Contaminate a city's water supply, use chemical weapons in a city, etc., and you can still commit mass murder. The vast majority of people who would have the capability to build or buy a nuke would be very wealthy, and not only have no need for one, but no wish to use one - the use of a nuke on US soil would crash the stock market, and no sane rich person would do that. An insane one might, but if someone is rich enough to potentially buy a nuke, they're rich enough today to find another way to kill a million people.

Happy?

Now, if you turn this discussion into ridiculing me about nuclear weapons, I'll just leave. That isn't what this thread is about. And at least I'm consistent, unlike most people.

[KrazyHorse]

The reason for this was to force those who use your justification to examine the consequences of this thought process. I know you're consistent (for the most part). I also know that the great majority of people will disagree with your statement. I'm trying to get them to be more consistent. Capiche?

In other words, if their best justification for widespread private gun ownership is that the government can't meddle with private property, then they'll have to make a decision on what they like more: being able to own a gun, or being able to go to sleep at night with the knowledge that your neighbour isn't in his basement building a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb.

[David Floyd]

OK, gotcha.

[Propaganda]

Actually, this would not happen if money was invested in creating jobs, instead of spending it all on military.

[David Floyd]

Eh?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Doesn't mean I'm particularly thrilled with the idea of people toting nukes, but I can't see any way for the government to morally stop it.

If you were somehow able to make a nuke appear in your home without using public property, Congress has the power of eminent domain and has the authority to appropate the weapon at market value.

[David Floyd]

I don't support the power of eminent domain, and in a world where private property is untouchable, eminent domain goes out the window.

[Panag]

hi ,

guns dont kill people , its the people that use guns that kill other people , ....

have a nice day

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you were somehow able to make a nuke appear in your home without using public property, Congress has the power of eminent domain and has the authority to appropate the weapon at market value.

They don't need eminent domain. There are several nuclear regulations which would allow the Feds to seize the weapon and the owner without so much as a penny of compensation. Furthermore they would probably go in guns blazing without the slightest fear of public remorse for the deaths of the owners of the weapons.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't support the power of eminent domain, and in a world where private property is untouchable, eminent domain goes out the window.

Which world is that Dave? Eminent domain is a long and well established fact in this one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
They don't need eminent domain.

I know that. I was merely stating a libertarian solution to the problem of people owning nukes for David.

[KrazyHorse]

Not enough of one...