• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Breakdown In Civil Order


Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?

They are scheduled for replacement over the next few years, and it appears that you have the inalienable right granted by the second amendment to keep and bear such things.

You might need to save up; at $7 million each, they are fairly expensive. But can you really put a price tag* on the constitutionally guaranteed right to dispose of a possibly tyrannical future government by the turning of the District of Colombia into a radioactive crater, just as the Founding Fathers clearly intended?

It seems to me that if the second amendment definition of "arms" extends to machine guns, despite those being far more powerful than anything the authors of the Bill of Rights had seen (or likely even imagined), then there is no legal limit on how far the definition extends, or how powerful any individual 'arm' can be.






*Of course you can. It would read "$7,000,000 plus tax".
 
From the article, this is probably not going to get past the next court of appeals.
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?

They are scheduled for replacement over the next few years, and it appears that you have the inalienable right granted by the second amendment to keep and bear such things.
Don't be stupid. The Founding Fathers clearly supported the right to self-defense with weapons "up to the limit of 15 kilotons".
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?

They are scheduled for replacement over the next few years, and it appears that you have the inalienable right granted by the second amendment to keep and bear such things.
Don't be stupid. The Founding Fathers clearly supported the right to self-defense with weapons "up to the limit of 15 kilotons".
What else would “well-regulated militia” mean??
 
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?

They are scheduled for replacement over the next few years, and it appears that you have the inalienable right granted by the second amendment to keep and bear such things.
You ever try to bear an ICBM? It weighs 40 tons. Sounds like a Loretta right.

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: crying

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.​

You might need to save up; at $7 million each, they are fairly expensive. But can you really put a price tag* on ...
*Of course you can. It would read "$7,000,000 plus tax".
That's just for the missile -- W87 mod 1 warheads are expected* to cost $20 million apiece. Also, you're not counting profit margin -- the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to keep arms if you own them, and your right to bear arms if your back's up to it, but there's nothing in there about a right to have the government sell them to you at cost... :devil:

(* Currently. Government programs have been known to have cost overruns.)
 
That's fucking crazy.

I want my Howitzer. Where's my Howitzer?
Up at the ski lodge.

Although I believe ours uses recoilless rifles, not howitzers. Artillery is the tool of choice for avalanche control. And, yes, they are in private hands. (Admittedly, though, always handled by ex soldiers who were trained on artillery by the Army.)
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Extremely few people are hurt by machine guns. It’s hardly worth our attention and certainly not worth the political capital to seek a ban.
And I mean come on... It's been decades since anyone has been hurt at all by a nuclear weapon. Hardly worth the political capital to keep them under control either (I know yours was sarcasm; so was mine. Or it better have been.)
 
That's fucking crazy.

I want my Howitzer. Where's my Howitzer?
Up at the ski lodge.

Although I believe ours uses recoilless rifles, not howitzers. Artillery is the tool of choice for avalanche control. And, yes, they are in private hands. (Admittedly, though, always handled by ex soldiers who were trained on artillery by the Army.)
Alaska DOT used to use an old 105. Now I think they use sonic blaster hung from a helicopter.
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Extremely few people are hurt by machine guns. It’s hardly worth our attention and certainly not worth the political capital to seek a ban.
And I mean come on... It's been decades since anyone has been hurt at all by a nuclear weapon. Hardly worth the political capital to keep them under control either (I know yours was sarcasm; so was mine. Or it better have been.)
No not at all. My thinking has been corrected by several trustworthy posters here that no small problem need be addressed until all the larger ones are solved. It’s only logical given the zero-sum game that gun control legislation by definition is. Right??!!11?
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?
If I buy 1 I could drag it to Australia and attached it to our electrical grid giving us our 1st MNR on the grid.
Nuclear weapons are not reactors. They don't, and can't, make electricity.

Equally, nuclear reactors cannot produce atomic explosions. If you could make atomic bombs by mistake, the Manhattan Project would have taken a couple of months, and cost a few thousand bucks.

The W87 mostly uses fusion for its yield; It is fueled by tritium. Nuclear reactors run on uranium (of which the W87 has none), although they can run on plutonium (of which the W87 has a very small amount, in far too pure a form to be useful in a reactor). Fusion reactors are at least forty years in the future (and always will be).
 
If you could make atomic bombs by mistake, the Manhattan Project would have taken a couple of months, and cost a few thousand bucks.
This is the Tale of Frederick Wermyss
Whose Parents weren’t on speaking terms.
So when Fred wrote to Santa Claus
It was in duplicate because
One went to Dad and one to Mum —
Both ask for some Plutonium.
See the result: Father and Mother —
Without Consulting one another —
Purchased two Lumps of Largish Size,
Intending them as a Surprise,
Which met in Frederick’s Stocking and
Laid level Ten square Miles of Land.

The moral?

Learn from this Dismal Tale of Fission
Not to mix Science with Superstition.
 

Machine guns for self defense.
What could possible go wrong?
Guess I can upgrade that musket that Vance is telling me to pick up.
Why not upgrade it to a Minuteman III ICBM, with a W87 mod 1, 475 kiloton yield, thermonuclear warhead?
If I buy 1 I could drag it to Australia and attached it to our electrical grid giving us our 1st MNR on the grid.
Nuclear weapons are not reactors. They don't, and can't, make electricity.
If you put it on a wheel in a cage and propped a photo of the Soviet Union in front of it, you probably could get some electricity from the wheel as it ran to get to the "Soviet Union".
 
You think native american tribal lands are lawless areas
The have their own laws and legal systems.
So do Hells Angels.
I find your implied analogy to be both tasteless and borderline racist.
How do you find it racist??

I read it as simply giving an example of a separate legal system that most everyone would agree is not good.
Jarhyn was making the recommendation that we as a society should have areas designated for people who want to be lawless anarchists, but still be supported by society and have their needs seen to. So basically, an enclave for antisocial outlaws to be supported at everyone else's expense.

You implied that tribal lands are like that - lawless areas of antisocial people being supported by the fruit of other people's labor. Then you went on to further compare native americans to a biker gang that has a history of being associated with violence, drug trafficking, and general criminality.

And you double down by saying that "most everyone agrees" that granting the original inhabitants of the country rights to their own lands and own autonomous governance is "not good".
 
You implied that tribal lands are like that - lawless areas of antisocial people being supported by the fruit of other people's labor.
You inferred that. I implied that each (Hells Angels and NA Lands) has their own internal governance. The former doesn't official own territory, they are outlaws straight up, but Native Americans on their own lands are exempt from most laws governing the EuroNazi invaders. :) .
Then you went on to further compare native americans to a biker gang that has a history of being associated with violence, drug trafficking, and general criminality.
Yup. And European Americans, same thing. They have their own government, it is associated with violence, drug trafficking and criminality so "general" that they nominated a 34x felon as their candidate to lead it. They ain't about to let no damn BLM gay libtards take it over, neither!

you double down by saying that "most everyone agrees" that granting the original inhabitants of the country rights to their own lands and own autonomous governance is "not good".
You wanna give them back their beads and let them have Manhattan? No? Then you do the same as you accuse me of.
 
Back
Top Bottom