Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:

I thought the bear arms package only applied To well regulated and maintained militias? America must have a LOT of those then...

You'd be wrong in your thinking.

To be fair, he was only one Supreme Court justice away from being right (if I remember that vote right).

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, he was only one Supreme Court justice away from being right (if I remember that vote right).

Well that and until the 1970's the SC was always on the militia side of the argument, so for most of the US's existence.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?

It's saying that because a well regulated (I.e. trained/competent) militia is a necessity of a free country that the government should not infringe upon the inaliable right of anyone to keep and bear arms. That a person is able to own arms was a given, this amendment was supposed to stop the government from disarming people.

The requirement of having to be "in a militia" is leftist fabrication. Many people are/were, under the militia act, but it is not a prerequisite to owning arms.

Even if you believe in the militia argument, as Nuggz posted, in many states most men ages 17-45 are part of the militia.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?

It basically came down to the gramatical structure of the ammendment. One side argued that militias are only the recognized militias once they were called up. Another argued that since militias are made up of the people, it is the people that are all potential members of the militia (and not the formal militia once established) that are covered by the 2nd. Both sides point to sentence structures, punctuations in the ammendment itself, prior drafts, non-Constitutional sources to make their case. (This is a pretty simplified explanation of course).

If I remember right that argument did make it to the Supreme Court at one point (ie: what exactly is covered by "militia") and if I remember right 5 SCOTUS judges decided it is everyone and 4 judges disagreed with that. But at this point the judicial interpretation of the 2nd is that it does cover everyone. It could always change in the future, it's not exactly unusual for the court to change their mind, but I wouldn't expect it any time soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, he was only one Supreme Court justice away from being right (if I remember that vote right).

Well that and until the 1970's the SC was always on the militia side of the argument, so for most of the US's existence.

SCOTUS can be fickle, something everybody should always remember when using SCOTUS rulings as a justification or the SCOTUS itself as any sort consistent authority.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?

A 'fighter' is no more a weapon than a Hummer or a Jeep Wrangler, or a damn Prius, for that matter, because vehicles, despite being able to have firearms (or just things that make things go BOOM) mounted upon them, are not themselves classified as weapons, as their general function is simply to move. This being the case, the Second Amendment has no baring on their regulation.

A bomb, when activated, goes boom. A gun, when activated, goes bang. A jet, when activated, goes roar. They all make noises, yes. The noises made by the first two indicate some level of violent action, and are of themselves destructive. The noise made by the jet indicates that someone turned it on, and is of itself a sign that said jet may or may not be moving. You see the difference, right?

A better argument would be based around grenades, or something similar.

EDITS: I can't do grammar today.

Do you honestly think the Revolution wasn't achieved through violent means? I think you're the one in need of a history lessen if thats the case.

For the record, I've never seen The Patriot

Here's a list of notable rebellions in world history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

A lot of those rebellions were conducted by paramilitary forces far inferior to the dominant political and/or military powers they sought to overthrow. Many of those were successful. If you do not think that an armed and motivated populace can successfully fight even a modern military power, you have not been paying attention to modern military history. Especially considering that in the context, we would be talking about the US military trying to fight its own people. Desertion and dissent within the ranks could easily cripple the military, political restrictions would probably prevent the military from ever bringing its power to bear, and if revolution is widespread then how is a military that fought for more than a decade to hope to hold Iraq and Afghanistan, who combined are in the ball park the size of California plus Texas, ever hope to maintain any level of control over the entire USA? The success or failure of any civil war within a given country is not based on its military might, but how widespread the will to resist that military is.

I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.

This approach to ownership vs. purchase has a precedent - the FDA's regulation of lasers. It's illegal for manufacturers to sell you an IZLID laser, but there are grey market sources you can buy them second hand. Just look at AR15.com...plenty of civilians own high power IZLID and other infrared lasers that will fry your eyeballs in half a second, even though they're VERY difficult to purchase. These guys also live in million dollar houses, and are giant fething nerds. I'm really not worried about them doing anything stupid with them...anyone who can afford an IZLID probably did something right with his life.


Every few years in Israel, they ask citizens to bring back stuff that they stole from the army, no questions asked. Every year they get back TANKS, HELICOPTERS, LAW launchers, things like that. How often do you read about Israelis negligently discharging their Merkava into the neighbor's house? It DOES NOT HAPPEN. Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/01 01:44:48

It's also worth noting that it's perfectly possible to legally own fully automatic weapons, including actual machine guns. There are several hundred thousand floating around the USA, as a matter of fact. Guess how many violent crimes have been committed with a legally owned full automatic firearm in the history of fully automatic firearms in the USA?

One. An off-duty SWAT officer took his submachine gun and killed the guy his wife was having an affair with.

That's the extend of violent crime committed with legally owned fully automatic weapons in the USA over the past 100 years or so. Scary stuff indeed.

100 years might be a bit much, you are talking about the 1920s in there as well. Al Capone and all that.

 d-usa wrote:
SCOTUS can be fickle

Agreed, but the idea that "the 2nd Amendment means A and has always meant A" is a bit silly since it changes with time and money, er, I mean lobbying.

What are we arguing about now? Has this morphed into the usual pro/anti 2nd Amendment debates?

When does it not?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do you honestly think the Revolution wasn't achieved through violent means? I think you're the one in need of a history lessen if thats the case.

For the record, I've never seen The Patriot.

I didn't say anything about violence nor deny that it was, you know... a war.

It's your characterization of the Revolution it is what is so laughably elementary: "America overthrew the tyrannical British Empire because we had guns." I know it's the right wing fantasy that we won the war because we just loved freedom so damn much. However, that completely ignores the otherwise complex world war that was taking place at the time, that in reality, we were just one part of. We weren't the scrappy underdogs waging a guerrilla war armed only with our patriotism and muskets going up against the full might of the British Empire; despite our early disadvantages, we were evenly pitched on the battlefield, had powerful allies (who also had allies), and in the end got really lucky.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The regulations for owning a MIG are different than the regulations for owning a G6?

Actually they are. The MIG doesn't have a US type certificate, so it's in the "experimental" category and subject to various restrictions that don't apply to a normal civilian aircraft. And then it gets even more restrictions because it's a large jet with a maximum speed over a certain limit. And I bet its emergency checklist contains at least one item where the only solution is "eject", which puts it into the strictest category of restrictions.

That's a ridiculous interpretation by any stretch at all. The JET is a VEHICLE. An AR15 is a WEAPON. If you can't see the difference then there really is no purpose continuing to engage you.

Sorry, but I'm just going to have to laugh at the idea that a MIG-21 with its hardpoints intact is somehow magically not a weapon. Perhaps you'd like to try selling one to North Korea and then explain to the government how it isn't a weapon?

What would you call a Toyota Tacoma, a weapon because when you mount a DSHK to it, it becomes a technical?

Do you understand the difference between a vehicle that can be modified to carry a weapon and a military aircraft designed from the beginning to carry weapons?

I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.

So do you have a problem with a civilian manufacturing their own equivalent of a Mk 82? Or a new company deciding to enter the market of "paranoid gun nuts who want a bigger bomb than their neighbor" and selling to anyone with the cash to buy a bomb?

Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.

Counter example: you know those regulations about owning a MIG-21 I mentioned? They were imposed because a lot of people with more money than training were buying old military aircraft and crashing them. Look at the accident reports and then come back and tell me that putting dangerous weapons in the hands of untrained users is hardly ever going to be a problem.

 whembly wrote:
What are we arguing about now? Has this morphed into the usual pro/anti 2nd Amendment debates?

Well, to be fair the original topic was a claim that Obama was trying to take our bullets so it isn't unexpected that we've got where we are.

 The Airman wrote:
I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.

It's paranoia because it isn't happening. There's a group that wants to ban all guns, but you know what? They're an irrelevant minority. There are a lot more people in power who either want to keep private ownership of guns or don't give a about the issue beyond the occasional "let's ban the guns" speech to keep the anti-gun voters pressing the "democrat" button every four years.

But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.

I already said that the proposed ban on M855 bullets is a bad policy, and the entire law about armor-piercing rifle bullets is just plain stupid. But that doesn't justify all the paranoid rants about how the sky is falling and Obama is going to ban all of the guns (like the article in the OP claimed). This is a fairly minor change that is based on an existing law, not a new invention by Obama or a major threat to gun owners. In fact, if the M855 bullets weren't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would notice they were gone.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What are we arguing about now? Has this morphed into the usual pro/anti 2nd Amendment debates?

Well, to be fair the original topic was a claim that Obama was trying to take our bullets so it isn't unexpected that we've got where we are.

Heh... I'll give you that.

So, back to the original discussion... as you can imagine, this attempt to ban this ammo sucks balls for no apparent reason.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.

It's paranoia because it isn't happening. There's a group that wants to ban all guns, but you know what? They're an irrelevant minority. There are a lot more people in power who either want to keep private ownership of guns or don't give a about the issue beyond the occasional "let's ban the guns" speech to keep the anti-gun voters pressing the "democrat" button every four years.

But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.

I already said that the proposed ban on M855 bullets is a bad policy, and the entire law about armor-piercing rifle bullets is just plain stupid. But that doesn't justify all the paranoid rants about how the sky is falling and Obama is going to ban all of the guns (like the article in the OP claimed). This is a fairly minor change that is based on an existing law, not a new invention by Obama or a major threat to gun owners. In fact, if the M855 bullets weren't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would notice they were gone.

I think you're over reacting buddy.

Obama advocated for more gun control. Publically, numerous times.

Shoot, AG Eric Holder said this: ‘I take personally as a failure’ the inability to pass gun control.

So, when the ATF is looking to ban certain ammos (for no apparent justified reasons)... it's no wonder that some of us would think that "the Obama administration" is trying to exert some form of gun control via backdoor method. (ie, no ammo... the AR is just a pretty hunk of metal).

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?

Well, in this scenario, the survivors and relatives could simply sue Cletus, or if he also died in the blast, his estate. Once again the government with it's onerous job-killing regulations complicates a simple matter easily solved between sovereign job creators.

 whembly wrote:
Obama advocated for more gun control. Publically, numerous times.

Have you ever heard the saying "actions speak louder than words"? Obama talked a lot about gun control, but barely made a token attempt (which everyone in the party almost certainly knew was doomed to fail) to do anything about it. That's a sign of someone who knows that an occasional "ban the guns" speech keeps an important group pressing the "democrat" button every four years, not a determined anti-gun crusader who is willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of guns.

(ie, no ammo... the AR is just a pretty hunk of metal).

But we're not even close to that. It's a potential ban on one specific type of ammunition, all of the other varieties of 5.56mm ammunition are untouched. As I said before, if the banned stuff wasn't one of the cheapest options for 5.56mm hardly anyone would even notice the loss.

 DarkLink wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.

This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.

As a side note, this applies to judges as well. So the next time you ask "how could the Supreme Court rule X", it's because the law says X, even if it probably should be Y.

Why does everyone keep overlooking the fact that XM855 doesn't meet the ATF's own definition of " armor piercing"? The US Army started the development of XM855 in 2005 and started using it in Iraq in 2010. It is specifically a rifle round not a pistol round and therefore doesn't meet the ATF's definition for armor piercing. The fact that pistol AR15s are available on the civilian market doesn't change that fact. It like using the NASCAR truck series as evidence that pickups were designed to be race cars. The classification of XM855 as armor piercing has nothing to do with facts or public safety it is simply a matter of petty vindictive and oppressive politics.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The ATF is just applying existing laws in a consistent manner. If you don't like what's happening then you should be complaining about the current laws on armor-piercing ammunition, not the proposed reclassification (with good reasons) of one specific type of 5.56mm ammunition.

This. It's a government agency doing their job in accordance with law, if the law is silly it's not the agency's fault that the outcome is silly because they're not supposed to be allowed to ignore laws they don't feel like following.

As a side note, this applies to judges as well. So the next time you ask "how could the Supreme Court rule X", it's because the law says X, even if it probably should be Y.

Why does everyone keep overlooking the fact that XM855 doesn't meet the ATF's own definition of " armor piercing"? The US Army started the development of XM855 in 2005 and started using it in Iraq in 2010. It is specifically a rifle round not a pistol round and therefore doesn't meet the ATF's definition for armor piercing. The fact that pistol AR15s are available on the civilian market doesn't change that fact. It like using the NASCAR truck series as evidence that pickups were designed to be race cars. The classification of XM855 as armor piercing has nothing to do with facts or public safety it is simply a matter of petty vindictive and oppressive politics.

Pretty sure your dates are off because I was issued that stuff in the IDF in 2007.

Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.

Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.

M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.



....


And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.

Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.

M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.



....


And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.

According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?91977-XM855-and-M855

M855 is the military designation for a foreign round called SS109. It was never developed by the US...definitely not as recently as 2000's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

 Grey Templar wrote:

Again, my posts really don't say what you think they're saying.

I think your posts are saying that you want inalienable rights not protected by the Constitution to be protected by the Constitution, and that the Founders' intent should be considered sufficient justification for such protection.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.

I've heard about four different stories on it.

One, that Federal is selling seconds/contract overruns. Federal, btw, has denied this, and the sheer number of them for sale suggests this is untrue.

Two: that it's a civilian version. As far as anyone seems to be able to determine, they're identical.

Three: the 'XM' designation on several rounds currently in service. Typically these are tracers, though some 'improved' rounds seem to still carry the 'X'.

Four, that they're designated surplus following the switch to the M855A1. Given everything else, this one smells the most legit to me.

However, Federal, who slapped the 'XM855' name on it hasn't said one way or the other, other than that they're not seconds or over runs.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

M855 is the military designation for a foreign round called SS109. It was never developed by the US...definitely not as recently as 2000's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

Though the SS109 was designed to pierce armor.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'll bite on that trolltastic strawman...

I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.

Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.


If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.

What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?

Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!

And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Also pretty sure the X (as in XM) stuff is called "X" specifically because it is factory seconds that aren't issued to soldiers.

Actually the X usually designates something as a prototype or experimental, or an improved version.

M855 is the US Military designation of the 5.56×45mm 62-grain ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. Identifiable by it's green tip, IIRC.



....


And they can pry my magazine fed 90mm F3 out of my cold, dead, turret.

According to LC, the X designation pertains to factory seconds. You can get the X-designated stuff all day today, nothing experimental about it.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?91977-XM855-and-M855

M855 is the military designation for a foreign round called SS109. It was never developed by the US...definitely not as recently as 2000's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

It's right in the link you posted, the "green tip" M855 was developed by the U.S. Army in 2005 and M855A1 was issued for use in 2010. There may be some inaccurate media representations of M855 and the green tip M855 that the ATF wants to ban but your links don't contradict my post.

Regardless of the nomenclature confusion the round in question is still and always has been a rifle round that fails to meet the definition of armor piercing pistol rounds used by the ATF.

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

M855 is the military designation for a foreign round called SS109. It was never developed by the US...definitely not as recently as 2000's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

Though the SS109 was designed to pierce armor.

It was designed to pierce steel, not body armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#SS109.2FM855

The SS109 was developed in the 1970s for the FN FNC rifle and the FN Minimi machine gun. To increase the range of the Minimi, the round was created to penetrate 3.5 mm of steel at 600 meters. The SS109 had a steel tip and lead rear and was not required to penetrate body armor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


It's right in the link you posted, the "green tip" M855 was developed by the U.S. Army in 2005 and M855A1 was issued for use in 2010. There may be some inaccurate media representations of M855 and the green tip M855 that the ATF wants to ban but your links don't contradict my post.

Regardless of the nomenclature confusion the round in question is still and always has been a rifle round that fails to meet the definition of armor piercing pistol rounds used by the ATF.

Ahhh...I see...you're confusing M855 with M855A1. The A1 stuff is new...M855 has been around since the 70's. M855 has a "green tip" whereas M855A1 is "green ammunition." Stupid distinction, I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'll bite on that trolltastic strawman...

I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.

Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.


If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.

What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?

Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!

And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.

Baaaaack to reality, kids.

I wish the Army banned the M855 and M855A1. Horrible dirty rounds they is. With the A1 so horrible that with out the barrel upgrade on the M4A1 it will reduce the life of the barrel by half with regular use.

Ugh can't stand those little guys.

Also in no way are they armor piercing. Black tips sure but then you need chromium plate barrels to reasonably use them.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'll bite on that trolltastic strawman...

I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.

Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.


If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.

What I am hearing is "make it so people can't buy it and people will be less likely to use it to kill others with it". If nuclear weapons became legal to produce and sell, what is stopping a group of patriotic nuclear scientists and engineers setting up the " Atomic Weapon Company" and building and selling weapons using their skills and knowledge to manufacture atomic weapons for home defence, concealed carry (for self defence about town) and sports and hunting?

Then any true blooded American could purchase one and be able to overthrow the government if the people elect someone they don't like into office. And of course, people could purchase them who might not love America, and instead want to use them against the American people! Maybe little Jimmy might decide to take his dads suitcase nuke into school because those teachers are really mean and teach them a lesson for a change!

And maybe while this is going on a group of biologists and chemists could turn their hands to producing handy purse sized cannisters of biological and chemical weapons, for when pepper spray is just not enough for that otherwise defenceless lady to fight off that evil immigrant rapist! Or you know... For that terrorist group to wipe out its enemies.

Baaaaack to reality, kids.

Oh the irony.