Major Kong, how would you use bombs to protect your freedom from the tyranny of government?
What, specifically, would you expect to need to blow up?
But with your name, why draw the line there?
[Cue Dr. Strangelove]
Major Kong?
Major Kong?
{Bomb bay doors open}
Where the hell is Major Kong?
{Bomb drops}
Yeee-haaa!!!
How about a cite for that, Susanann?
Nothing needs to be blown up now. But if the government gets out of hand a revolution will be in order. The people will need bombs to be able to protect their freedom. What chance would citizen militias have against the government without powerful bombs? Bombs are arms — arms are necessary for militias — militias are necessary for freedom — bombs are necessary for freedom.
But again, why? Bombs in the hands of an untrained populace aren’t going to be in any way effective against a trained military. Your idea that the populace can overthrow a govenment using military means is pretty weak to begin with.
Using bold typeface doesn’t support your point. You keep repeating it as if it will somehow make it true. The basic idea is that lines need to be drawn, you said it yourself in relation to atomic weapons. A fuel/fertilizer bomb can kill hundreds and already has, but you claim those are prefectly OK for people to have. Support your argument with something other than blanket statements.
By “sub-atomic”, I assume you mean an explosive whose yield is “below the yield level of an atomic bomb” – not an explosive that utilizes subatomic processes (which would include only nuclear bombs or hypothetical antimatter weapons).
Only 2 types of people need explosives. Trained demolition experts and psychopaths.
Protect their “freedom”??!! Against WHAT? WHO? Some hypothetical boogieman?
Anyone who believes that guns and bombs somehow garantee our freedom is living in a fantasy world. I for one am glad we live in a country where government change is not instituted by the rifle and the hand grenade. A well armed populous does not ensure freedom. It ensure rule by whatever group can gather enough of a critical mass of weapons and angry loners to disrupt the government. Everyone thinks that only the just will own guns and that they will use them justly like modern day Revolutionary War Minutemen. Would you want every Klansman, doomsday cultist, neo-Nazi and other radical extremists to have the same access to weaponry that the military has? Remember that those same bombs and guns that can be used to protect our freedom can easily be used by another group that wants to take it away.
msmith537
No, I don’t want every Klansman, doomsday cultist, neo-Nazi and other radical extremists to have access to ray guns and whathaveyou. Why would allowing people who have demonstrated that they know what they’re dealing with and not proven criminals or nut jobs to own and operate certain dangerous things (chemicals, explosives, guns, heavy machinery) equal handing out bazooka launchers to a vegan junkie death squad?
One could do a lot of damage with a truck full of ammonia gas, which is why it’s not legal for one to get behind the wheel of a truck full of ammonia gas with a special license.
msmith537
No, I don’t want every Klansman, doomsday cultist, neo-Nazi and other radical extremists to have access to ray guns and whathaveyou. Why would allowing people who have demonstrated that they know what they’re dealing with and not proven criminals or nut jobs to own and operate certain dangerous things (chemicals, explosives, guns, heavy machinery) equal handing out bazooka launchers to a vegan junkie death squad?
One could do a lot of damage with a truck full of ammonia gas, which is why it’s not legal for one to get behind the wheel of a truck full of ammonia gas with a special license.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030619/ap_on_re_us/al_qaida_plea_21
Screw the cite. Just save the postid for the next time she attempts to have any credibility whatsoever in a gun debate.
[sup]BOLDING ADDED[/sup]
j.c. you seem to be rapidly disqualifying yourself from rational debate. I assume you meant to state that one cannot drive an ammonia tanker without a special license. You may wish to stick with single positives instead of those tricky double negatives.
Susanann, please try to remember the old catch phrase; “Nothing’s illegal until you’re caught.”
Do you really want to be held responsible for all of the mass murder test cases required to further disqualify such an ill-thought-out-notion as yours?
I know this has degenerated into a bit of a mess, but I do understand the essential thought behind the OP. There are a number of 2nd amendment purists who read the text literally. “Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
If one is a purist who believes all varieties of firearm should be legally available, why does that not extend to RPGs? They both qualify as arms. What becomes the constitutional rationale for drawing the line. Or do purists not believe in any line?
Believe it or not I am not being intentionally obtuse or confrontational. I have wondered about this for some time.
If you are going to say we have no right to keep bombs, why do we have a right to keep guns? Remember the 2nd amendment says nothing about self defense. Guns are useless in regard to the intention of the 2nd amendment, without heavier weapons.
We don’t have a legal right to keep all types of guns.
Guns and haever weapons combined are still useless in the hands of an untrained populace.
Do you seriously believe that a bunch of citizens armed with guns and bombs would have a snowball’s chance in Hell of stopping the US government should it ever go rogue?
“Hey Billy-Bob! Get the dynamite and grenades ready! We’s gonna go fight us a squadron of them there stealth bombers! Yeee-haw!”
When the constitution was written, any group of people with enough weapons could form a passable army. These days, you’d need billions of dollars to buy the state-of-the-art weaponry needed to be a serious contender in an war against any well-supplied nation. And even then, you’d need special training that simply isn’t available to your average citizen.
Frankly, the 2nd amendment is outdated.
Honestly, I’d be in favor of a well regulated militia in possession of heavy weapons. You want to have the right to bear arms to defend the nation? Fine, spend one week a year living in a foxhole under regulation. If you’re willing to do that, you have the right to bear whatever you want.
Really, am I the only one who saw Doctor Strangelove?
Hey, the Second Amendment was written during a time when people needed guns to eat and kill Injuns and bears and such. I don’t believe that the same conditions apply today.
Mabe if you could provide recent examples of well-armed populations overthrowing tyranical governments and replacing them with more progressive ones, I might be convinced.
If you are worried about the government taking away your freedoms, you would be better off getting involved in the legitimate process than stockpiling dynamite sticks like Wyle E Coyote.
Dear Madam,
I wish to protest on the strongest possible terms about the post you have just made concerning the eating habits of early American colonial settlers. I’ll have you know that many of my close personal friends were colonists and almost none of them were cannibals.
Your Sincerely,
Retired Rear Admiral Arthur Charles Stromm, Mrs.
Also, the early government couldn’t afford to buy guns for everybody in the militia, so they said it was okay for them to bring their own along if they got called up. That no longer applies, either…
I’ve only scanned this thread, so please forgive me if this has already been posted.
The 2nd Ammendment recognizes the right to bear arms. I don’t belive bombs are “arms”. They fall into the category of ordnance. (So would an RPG.) So the 2nd Ammendment would not apply to bombs.
Also, a gun has to be pointed at a target. A bomb is an “area weapon”. If you try to take out an individual target with a grenade, you are likely to kill or injure non-targets.