The Bigger the Deadlier!

[Vanilluxe]

I had an interesting discussion in Political Science class recently and the professor asked an interesting question that I could not answer, where do we put a limit on arms? I know most of you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

 

[RickyJ]

Who is going to do the limiting? The Federal government? The State? Will they also be limited?

The military industrial complex of this nation has no problems building weapons of war and selling them all over the world. Once in foreign hands they can then sell them to the highest bidder, like Israel has done to us. If the highest bidder of foreign origin can get America made weapons, then how about America militias being able to get them too?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

I think they have them. Just not you, me, or your professor.

But yes, people have those all over the world when they don't have someone forcing them not to.

Your polsci professor errs if he thinks that "we" have those weapons. I bet he doesn't have shit.

 

[tod evans]

When the government is able to outgun the citizens tyranny ensues.

How are the citizens expected to abide by our declaration of independence?

"When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government."

Stacking the deck in favor of the government seems to defeat this whole concept....

Wonder what your class has to say about a government that blatantly declares "war" on segments of it's citizenry?

 

[pcosmar]

The Founders of this country owned warships and cannon..
And the "Rockets Red Glare" would suggest they also had missiles.

You can buy submarines,, if you can afford it. Tanks and Jet aircraft,, if you can afford them.

Have you heard of a crime spree using Howitzers? Or Anti aircraft guns?

Pre 68 amnesty registered breach ring.
Civilian legal full auto artillery piece.
1938 manufacture red, 1960s joystick factory upgrade.
Full set off factory tooling.
Full set of reloading tools and components.

 

[Kodaddy]

I want the ability to be armed to the degree of an average soldier in the US army.

 

[specsaregood]

I had an interesting discussion in Political Science class recently and the professor asked an interesting question that I could not answer, where do we put a limit on arms? I know most of you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

My followup question is, what makes the people of our government any different than its citizens? Are they in someway more trustworthy, noble and fit to handle the responsibilty of those weapons? I'd say history shows that they are not. So why should the citizens be limited if the government is not?

 

[Vanilluxe]

My followup question is, what makes the people of our government any different than its citizens? Are they in someway more trustworthy, noble and fit to handle the responsibilty of those weapons? I'd say history shows that they are not. So why should the citizens be limited if the government is not?

Well, what happens if say like theres a billionaire whose company bought a bunch of weapons from aircrafts to armored subways and started a coup de tat? The government would be the only entity strong enough to put the billionaire warlord down. I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

 

[low preference guy]

I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

bwahahahaha

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well, what happens if say like theres a billionaire whose company bought a bunch of weapons from aircrafts to armored subways and started a coup de tat? The government would be the only entity strong enough to put the billionaire warlord down. I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

OMG....

It is precisely those type of people that are in government.

And, FYI, anybody with the money can already purchase everything from a tank to aircraft carrier.

 

[Anti Federalist]

stoopid dupe posts

 

[Origanalist]

Well, what happens if say like theres a billionaire whose company bought a bunch of weapons from aircrafts to armored subways and started a coup de tat? The government would be the only entity strong enough to put the billionaire warlord down. I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

Wow! No kidding? So you really think that people in government aren't people " with high ambitions who can be dangerous "? Astounding!

 

[Vanilluxe]

OMG....

It is precisely those type of people that are in government.

And, FYI, anybody with the money can already purchase everything from a tank to aircraft carrier.

They can purchase those, but under strict regulation from the government and no ammunitions or working weapon systems are allowed in those people's hands, so the government keeps us safe by halting working big guns.

 

[Vanilluxe]

Wow! No kidding? So you really think that people in government aren't people " with high ambitions who can be dangerous "? Astounding!

We hold the government responsible for its actions that it takes by using elections.

 

[Origanalist]

We hold the government responsible for its actions that it takes by using elections.

LMAO!

 

[Verrater]

It is precisely those type of people that are in government.

And, FYI, anybody with the money can already purchase everything from a tank to an aircraft carrier.

This.

 

[ghengis86]

If you can secure it and insure against fallout from accidental/incidental damage, you should be able to posess any tool.

 

[specsaregood]

I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

How is it stable? It risks a complete change in control every 2 years, it has acquired a debt which is insurmountable and policy decisions that spark wars and sometimes riots. By comparison there are corporations that have been under the same controls for decades and not done any of those things. So what do you mean by "stable"? The people in governmet are just people, they are not special or any different than you or I. They do not get some magical power just from being "government".

 

[tod evans]

"Government" gets their employees from the pool business rejected.

Thinking that "government" is better at anything just doesn't make sense..

 

[Chris from Upstate NY]

The government should not have the power to limit anything to its citizenry... plain and simple. If you have the resources to procure a tank or submarine or whatever, that should be none of the governments business. If you then decide to use said tank or sub to take away the liberty or freedom from another citizen or group of citizens, then you must face the consequences. And to say you trust the government because it is stable is just foolish. I actually can't think of anything less stable to use in a pun against it.