America doesn't have enough guns

[bilby]

the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

I could see an argument for its constitutionality if it were 1786 though.

A restrction that civilians could only own firearms manufactured before 1786 would be both in keeping with the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, and a massive improvement to US society.

Even if you were to exchange the word 'manufactured' with 'designed', that would still be a big help.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)

There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, the cost to license is $200 plus a background check that I'm sure the person pays for. Same as any other NFA item.

Yes. But the cost for a dealer to get and maintain a license to sell fully automatic firearms gets passed on to the buyer, and the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

The cost is a matter of supply and demand. Note the 1986 bit--no new full-auto weapons enter the civilian market, thus the competition for the existing ones makes the price something like 10x what a buyer not subject to those limits would pay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.

 

[Elixir]

the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.

Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.

Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.

Legally owned full auto weapons are basically nonexistent in the criminal statistics. It's a non-issue. Restrictions on the legal ones does nothing about the illegal imports and conversions that are the only ones to show up in the crime data--and even then only very rarely.

 

[Jarhyn]

...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)

There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.

Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

I guess the point is that we put oversight on possession and deployment of certain tools and I don't see any reason that tools of violence need for some magical reason as the 2a abuser would have us believe in that they must be handled any differently, except with MORE scrutiny.

 

[Elixir]

the restriction that civilians can only own fully automatic firearms made and registered before 1986 makes the price of such weapons exorbitant.

That's a stupid and arbitrary restriction though.

It's when the law was passed. They grandfathered the existing ones but prohibited any new ones from entering the market.

Whelp…
That horse has left the barn. Wooops.
Too bad guns don’t behave like nukes, and “go bad” after a few years.

Legally owned full auto weapons are basically nonexistent in the criminal statistics. It's a non-issue. Restrictions on the legal ones does nothing about the illegal imports and conversions that are the only ones to show up in the crime data--and even then only very rarely.

Right. Sloppy posting on my part. I was thinking of what happens if they outlawed new semi-auto assault rifles. Wouldn't make a goddam bit of difference because the Country is awash in them.

 

[bilby]

...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)

There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.

Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

...

Yeah, it would be terrible if we were to contaminate outer space with radiation.

 

[Jarhyn]

...
(And there actually isn't a reason against privately owned nukes...)

There absolutely is a difference between a selfish entity begging and paying for access to one or two nuclear cores for a tightly controlled mission of controlled detonation with strong anti-malignancy measures, and a selfish entity having the unilateral right to make, control, and deploy unilaterally a nuclear MIRV.

The original joke was on Nuclear Weapons, as I understood it.

Note that my position is that private possession is impossible. Furthermore, any large blasting requires permits. This would be no different. I'm just saying a private entity with a legitimate, safe use for a nuke should be able to buy it and have it set off where they want--unless somebody comes up with something new this would mean only deep space use.

Oh, yeah, but that isn't 2a and I'm not even sure that's safe. It's probably far safer on or near a planetary body of some kind where gravity can be used to contain the whole mess.

...

Yeah, it would be terrible if we were to contaminate outer space with radiation.

I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)

 

[Jarhyn]

I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)

It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)

It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.

How would a chunk of uranium reconstitute? Virtually 100% of the material will depart at very high speed, how would it ever come back together?

And radiation is a fact of life in space, adding a tiny bit more isn't going to have a meaningful effect. Almost certainly not even a measurable one.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am thinking more contaminating it with clouds of shit that are going to accrete and just be new obstacles in places things may need to move through. We shouldn't even be irresponsible and messy with outer space. Look where that got us with earth orbits

So long as it is in deep space the effect will be basically zero compared to the radiation already out there. More care would have to be taken in putting it into Earth's orbit but so long as the detonations take place so the asteroid shadows the Earth there would be no radioactivity at all reaching Earth--everything heading towards Earth would hit the asteroid instead, everything that misses the asteroid would be above escape velocity and would not return.

Note that even a simple shadow shield is probably enough to ensure zero fallout reaches the Earth. (Note that gamma and x-ray pulse from the detonation do not matter, they can't meaningfully penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do not induce radioactivity. The only threat is the particles.)

It's not the fallout. It's the actual particles out there in places ostensibly around and between places things may want to go.

Having a chunk of several of uranium reconstitute from the dust out there in the cold of space spinning very very fast after a few years or decades from the cloud of gas it would become would be kinda shitty for whatever runs into that very dense obstacle.

I'm more talking about environmentally polluting the vacuum with bits of stuff.

How would a chunk of uranium reconstitute? Virtually 100% of the material will depart at very high speed, how would it ever come back together?

And radiation is a fact of life in space, adding a tiny bit more isn't going to have a meaningful effect. Almost certainly not even a measurable one.

The same way asteroids and planets do once stars pop, I'd imagine. Sure, it'll be a cloud of dust for a while, but nothing stays that way forever, especially outside a gravity well.

Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.

That's the one thing I could see, though I would like to hope we get our science to the point where we are proactive on the bigger rocks. If KSP taught me anything, it's that it's more about timing than total delta-v.

I would rather just... Not be doing things that significantly change the velocity of things, forever, especially when we might have to move through there again, eventually.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or maybe it never does. Or maybe it sends bits of whatever space rock they popped with it flying at very high speeds.

I just don't see a lot of good arguments for ever setting off a nuke, on a planet OR in "deep space".

Orion drive, aka Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.

Even if we aren't going to use it for mining we should know how in case a dangerous rock shows up.

That's the one thing I could see, though I would like to hope we get our science to the point where we are proactive on the bigger rocks. If KSP taught me anything, it's that it's more about timing than total delta-v.

I would rather just... Not be doing things that significantly change the velocity of things, forever, especially when we might have to move through there again, eventually.

The residual radiation threat from an Orion in deep space is effectively zero.

And whatever we want, we need to be able to deflect rocks. We also need to be able to take an emergency shot with an ICBM or the like--city-killers might be picked up at the last minute and could be killed with an ICBM modified to carry a seeker and appropriate detonator. Setting off a nuke that close to the planet wouldn't exactly be good but it's a hell of a lot better than a city being wiped out.

 

[bilby]

Setting off a nuke that close to the planet wouldn't exactly be good

Why not?

How would it's effects on Earth's surface differ from those of the solar flares and CMEs that have been regular events since forever?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Setting off a nuke that close to the planet wouldn't exactly be good

Why not?

How would it's effects on Earth's surface differ from those of the solar flares and CMEs that have been regular events since forever?

Electromagnetic pulse.

Look up the Starfish Prime nuclear test.

 

[bilby]

Setting off a nuke that close to the planet wouldn't exactly be good

Why not?

How would it's effects on Earth's surface differ from those of the solar flares and CMEs that have been regular events since forever?

Electromagnetic pulse.

Look up the Starfish Prime nuclear test.

I am aware of it. And reiterate my question.