3 ms·

> A good place to draw the line is one that places > responsibility on the tool-wielders [...] many of us > object to gun control on that basis. I've y

by avar 9y ago

> A good place to draw the line is one that places > responsibility on the tool-wielders [...] many of us > object to gun control on that basis. I've yet to see someone make this argument who doesn't acknowledge that the mere posession of certain weaponry should be banned because it's too powerful, the difference is just whether you think guns should fall under that umbrella. Or do you think private people should be allowed to buy hydrogen bombs?

CamperBob2 9y ago
Or do you think private people should be allowed to buy hydrogen bombs? On what planet do you anticipate gun control laws having any effect whatsoever on the plans of someone who is inclined to acquire a hydrogen bomb?
- avar 9y ago
  On a planet that follows your advice that the line shouldn't be drawn at outlawing tools, and instead certain usage should be made illegal, "not [..] the mere existence or possession of the tools themselves". I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. I think that argument makes no sense, since it clearly leads to absurd outcomes, such as being able to purchase nukes, armed fighter jets, tanks, MRAPs, mines, chemical weapons etc.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    For the most part, the examples you cite aren't "militia"-class weapons. They fall under the purview of multinational agreements like ITAR, not the Second Amendment. The argument is ridiculous because if you possess things like nukes, you're either a sovereign state or a non-state actor at the international level. You're not playing the role of a US citizen subject to Constitutional laws and protections. Absolutely no enlightenment can be had on the subject of gun control by bringing up thermonuclear weapons and saying, "So there!" You're in good company, though, because the ACLU does the same thing in attempting to wriggle out of supporting Second Amendment rights.
    - avar 9y ago
      You're commenting in a thread about the UK. Bringing up the specifics of US gun control law is completely irrelevant. Yes of course any country trying to cell hydrogen bombs or chemical weapons to its citizens couldn't do so without international sanctions. The example is clearly ridiculous, but it's brought up in the context of illustrating that your argument is equally outlandish.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      The point is that, in the absence of laws regulating private possession of nukes, the only limit on obtaining one would be financial resources necessary to do so. This requires an actor that operates on the same scale as states, but e.g. modern transnational corporations are on that scale. If Apple invested its $250 billion into procuring a nuke, do you think they would be unable to do so? Would you be comfortable if they did?
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        If Apple invested its $250 billion into procuring a nuke, do you think they would be unable to do so? Would you be comfortable if they did? It's an interesting question, all right. I'd ultimately have to throw up my hands and classify it as one of the ever-growing threats to human existence over which I have no control. Frankly I'd be more comfortable with Tim Cook's finger on the big red button than Donald Trump's or Mike Pence's. I could totally see Woz building a nuke in his garage, just to see if he could do it...

by avar 9y ago

CamperBob2 9y ago

Or do you think private people should be allowed to buy hydrogen bombs? On what planet do you anticipate gun control laws having any effect whatsoever on the plans of someone who is inclined to acquire a hydrogen bomb?

avar 9y ago
On a planet that follows your advice that the line shouldn't be drawn at outlawing tools, and instead certain usage should be made illegal, "not [..] the mere existence or possession of the tools themselves". I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. I think that argument makes no sense, since it clearly leads to absurd outcomes, such as being able to purchase nukes, armed fighter jets, tanks, MRAPs, mines, chemical weapons etc.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  For the most part, the examples you cite aren't "militia"-class weapons. They fall under the purview of multinational agreements like ITAR, not the Second Amendment. The argument is ridiculous because if you possess things like nukes, you're either a sovereign state or a non-state actor at the international level. You're not playing the role of a US citizen subject to Constitutional laws and protections. Absolutely no enlightenment can be had on the subject of gun control by bringing up thermonuclear weapons and saying, "So there!" You're in good company, though, because the ACLU does the same thing in attempting to wriggle out of supporting Second Amendment rights.
  - avar 9y ago
    You're commenting in a thread about the UK. Bringing up the specifics of US gun control law is completely irrelevant. Yes of course any country trying to cell hydrogen bombs or chemical weapons to its citizens couldn't do so without international sanctions. The example is clearly ridiculous, but it's brought up in the context of illustrating that your argument is equally outlandish.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    The point is that, in the absence of laws regulating private possession of nukes, the only limit on obtaining one would be financial resources necessary to do so. This requires an actor that operates on the same scale as states, but e.g. modern transnational corporations are on that scale. If Apple invested its $250 billion into procuring a nuke, do you think they would be unable to do so? Would you be comfortable if they did?
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      If Apple invested its $250 billion into procuring a nuke, do you think they would be unable to do so? Would you be comfortable if they did? It's an interesting question, all right. I'd ultimately have to throw up my hands and classify it as one of the ever-growing threats to human existence over which I have no control. Frankly I'd be more comfortable with Tim Cook's finger on the big red button than Donald Trump's or Mike Pence's. I could totally see Woz building a nuke in his garage, just to see if he could do it...