Gun Control is not about rights or liberty, it is about health and public safety, period, you don't have a right to endanger your neighbor

Nov 2017
1,127
608
Virginia
#61
hitler made it easier to own a gun unless you were a jew or a communist if you were a loyal german he made it easier
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
Yup, all this stuff is examples of "gun control"; this involves the government saying who can and cannot have a gun, having to have a permit, expiration for permits, and this was a government that committed genocide. They may have made aspects easier, but they made it harder for the victims of their genocide.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2017
1,127
608
Virginia
#62
Where are the archives for all other forms of violence? Is gun violence the only type of violence that has an archive? Get a vehicle violence archive and call for "vehicle control" too, and do that for every other type of physical violence, if you're going to be consistent. When you only make a big deal out of gun violence and not other forms of physical violence, it exposes that you have an agenda. There's a double standard; gun violence needs to be stopped, but not other forms of physical violence & it's also an ends justifies the means argument to call for "gun control" in order to stop gun violence. I don't know of any exceptions where a mass shooter wasn't on antidepressants; if you really want to solve the problem of mass shootings, put your focus instead on antidepressants.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#63
Yup, all this stuff is examples of "gun control"; this involves the government saying who can and cannot have a gun, having to have a permit, expiration for permits, and this was a government that committed genocide. They may have made aspects easier, but they made it harder for the victims of their genocide.
thats why we have a government, should people be allowed to keep bio chemical weapons nuclear bombs at home, are you insane? semi automatic rifles should only be legal if they are regualted the same way fully automatic rifles are under title 2 noeew guns should be banned and old ones grandfathered all the secod mandment does is give a state the right to fomr a militia it is like your tonsils a anarchronism left over from an ancient time
 
Nov 2017
1,127
608
Virginia
#65
thats why we have a government, should people be allowed to keep bio chemical weapons nuclear bombs at home, are you insane?
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear [EDIT] radioactive things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they [EDIT: "they", meaning "the federal government"] might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.



semi automatic rifles should only be legal if they are regualted the same way fully automatic rifles are under title 2 noeew guns should be banned and old ones grandfathered all the secod mandment does is give a state the right to fomr a militia it is like your tonsils a anarchronism left over from an ancient time
You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Sabcat
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#66
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.




You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
what difference does it make if your insane? its about the truth? how would you know whats true? your insane? see how that works? crazy people should not be allowed to have sharp scissors let alone guns? and here again it was easier to get a permit for a full auto machine gun in nazi germany that it is now in the usa, did you know that? they vwere better armed than we are and they loved hitler, i'm part german by blood but i have to be honest the german people have to bear the shame of the truth, and the truth is the majority of germans lved hitler they supported hitler, they either did not give a shit about the jews or were tickled pink he was getting rid of them, they had enough armes to fight him if they wanted, they just didnt want to because they loved his crazy speed addicted pervy ass... if the german people had risen up how in gods name would they beat the army, the werhmact took on the whole fucking world and almost won they beat the poles in 2 weeks the french in a month they bombed the uk for 5 years, they almost took the ussr, how could a civilian armed or not face him?
 
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#67
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear [EDIT] radioactive things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they [EDIT: "they", meaning "the federal government"] might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.




You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
Introduction"How To Crush A Tea Party Motivated Uprising
In this section of the report, Benson first writes that" "The Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control."
He goes on to detail that "this scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act--for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act--and the roles of the local, national, and international media."

Military Will Defeat Any Militia Type Rebellion On US Soil According To Study
 
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#68
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear [EDIT] radioactive things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they [EDIT: "they", meaning "the federal government"] might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.




You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
okay mr crazy here you go Military Will Defeat Any Militia Type Rebellion On US Soil According To Study
 
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#69
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear [EDIT] radioactive things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they [EDIT: "they", meaning "the federal government"] might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.




You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia okay mr crazy?
 
Sep 2018
1,678
379
cleveland ohio
#70
What difference does it make whether I'm insane or not? This isn't about me or my sanity. I'm about defending the truth. If I say 1 + 1 = 2, or 1 + 1 = 3, what's relevant is whether I'm right or wrong, not whether I'm sane or insane in saying either. I would be right in saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and I would be wrong in saying 1 + 1 = 3; that's all that's relevant.

We have government to have capitalism (look for my other posts where I discuss what I mean by "capitalism" & you can IM me if you can't find them and I'll reply with a link to them), because to have capitalism is to have collaboration, and that's preferable to fighting wars & killing each other. Government is best for & should really only be used to act as a referee & making the playing field fair and level; it's up to us to take advantage of that fair & level playing field that it provides to compete & collaborate, to make society better for everyone.

Although I didn't specify bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, it so happens that I accept that the 2nd Amendment covers our right to keep and bear those things; I would even say that at least half of the Bill of Rights recognizes our rights to have these things (particularly amendments 4, 5, 6, and 10, along with the 2nd). That's the agreement; that's the deal with the US Constitution. If you have reservations with people having bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in their homes, at least start off by working on having the US Constitution amended, then you can pass laws banning such things.

You used the words "weapons" & "bombs" & although some hypothetical person who had such things in their homes might have such substances/materials/devices in their homes, but that may be subjective, or you may be projecting. Someone might be more objective in saying they have bio chemical or nuclear substances/materials; they might have these things for purposes other than to use as weapons or to have a bomb. I work at a hospital, and we have bio chemical & nuclear [EDIT] radioactive things (we even have "ray guns"); we use them to help & heal people, not as weapons or bombs.

Guess what, the federal government has or had at least some of these items, and it's to have them as weapons/bombs. Are all Americans insane for allowing the federal government to have these items? I'll tell you another thing, not only do I think that the US Constitution is essentially saying that private citizens can have such items, but I also happen to think that they [EDIT: "they", meaning "the federal government"] might not have the authorization from the US Constitution to have any of these things. The federal goverment shouldn't have or use anything, unless the US Constitution authorizes them to have or use them. The US Constitution says the government can have an Army & a Navy, but where does it say that it can have weapons of mass destruction?

Technically, the Air Force is unconstitutional; here's someone trying to argue that it isn't unconstitutional: Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional – Discourse.net

Personally, I don't exactly have it very high on my priority list to go an complain to the federal government to go shut down Air Force operations until the appropriate changes are made to the US Constitution, but in principle it's something I don't think ought to be ignored, either. We should be observant and mindful of not only making sure that we adhere to the US Consitution, but that we demonstrate that we're being serious by making sure we utilize the appropriate channels. The reason that I think this is important is because if we don't stick to the plan & what not, people are going to think they don't have to take things seriously & that it's ok to take whatever arbitrary liberties they want to. Part of the reason it's not high on my priority list is because it's practical, useful, beneficial for us to have it for national security purposes.

BTW, speaking of national security purposes, let me ask you this: do you think the government can go throwing its weight around to do certain things & claim national security? I say no, at least not in the broad sense or way that they do, for example NSA spying. The exception would be if Congress declared war, in which case there may be justification for going around, doing certain things & claiming it's for national security business.

Now let's be practical, why would anyone in this day & age want to have bio chemical weapons or nuclear bombs in general, nevermind sitting around in their own homes? Even if there were someone who did, for whatever reason, these things ain't cheap.

According to this source, we're talking about $5k/gram: Price of Plutonium - The Physics Factbook

According to this source, it takes 2 - 50 kg of the active ingredient to make nukes:
Weapon Materials Basics (2009)

Do the math & that comes out to about $10 million just for one of the cheapest ones (about $250 million for one at the upper end).

I've only given these sources a cursory glance, so I don't know if they've taken enrichment into account. If not, that only ups the price to a bit past $10 million for one that's the cheapest. Nukes also require other things besides the raw active ingredient itself; I'm no bomb making expert, but I think they basically also need a triggering mechanism, a housing & components to make it work, etc. This probably adds another few hundred thousand dollars to the price tag.

So, let me ask you this, now. If you had at least $10 million in pocket change, would you throw it away on trying to purchase or make a nuke? Who would? Wouldn't you instead want to get urself a new lambo, a mansion, or at least some hookers & blow? I know money doesn't buy happiness, but would you bother wanting to be angry or vengeful with the world for any reason, if you had that kind of cash lying around? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say heck no! I'd wanna chill, probably go out there and live in the lap of luxury, or spoil myself & what not - lifestyles of the rich & famous, shit like that.




You're way off the mark, here. Not only was it necessary back during the American Revolution era, but the key underlying socio-economic factors haven't changed today. We still have to work to make a living, we still have money/property/ownership, and we still have people who want to be despots & take from others by force, so they don't have to work & get their hands dirty & can live in the lap of luxury.

Life free or die & give me liberty or give me death are still relevant today.
2006[edit]
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[4]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[5] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
 

Similar Discussions