mzmadmike (mzmadmike) wrote,
mzmadmike
mzmadmike

Yes, Nukes

My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.


"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."


No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of a less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.


Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.


And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.


Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.


And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.


So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.

My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.


"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."


No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of a less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.


Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.


And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.


Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.


And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.


So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.





Read more
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 5 comments
My response to the nuke strawman is "OK, we've found a type of armament that most people would agree are not appropriate for civilian ownership, and many people don't even want owned by the government. The Constitution has a mechanism to deal with this, it should be relatively easy to pass an amendment restricting the private ownership of nuclear weapons, why don't you contact your Congressman and ask that they introduce one?"
There was a time in America when a private citizen could, if he wanted, purchase a ship and mount heavy artillery on it. In fact, this was perfectly legal into the early 20th century.

Did this time see numerous instances when people fitted out private warships and attacked their innocent fellows, perhaps whimsically-bombarding random houses and even ports they didn't like? Was it then necessary to ban private warship ownership, for that reason?

As a matter of fact, no. This is because firing one's artillery at other people or their property save in military operations or self-defense was ILLEGAL. As it pretty much always was since the invention of artillery in Hellenistic Greece.

If nuclear weapons were legal for private citizens to own, it would be illegal to use them save under very limited circumstances. Given the cost of their purchase and maintenance, coupled with their limited utility, very few private citizens would ever purchase such weapons.

So yes, this is a red herring.
Chico, CA is already ahead of the curve.

No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system under penalty of Chapter 9.60.030

I believe there is a $500 fine if you do.
Snicker.

That means any contractor who does blasting is in violation, explosives are an integral part of the basic nuke.

Luggage dealers will be next, eh?
Hmm, it isn't quite clear to me Mike, whether you actually support being able to own a nuke, or whether you are simply talking about the 'owning nukes is not reasonable' argument being a red herring.

However, I have noticed the following about a lot of 'slippery slope arguments'.

1. The people who use them deliberately disregard that there may be something qualitatively different (rather than just difference in scale) regarding point 1,2, and 3, and the end points on the slope. People against abortion or in favor of circumcision are good examples of this. An anti-abortion argument will often go something along the lines that if you support the right to life of a newborn baby or the mentally retarded, despite their lesser intelligence, then you also need to support the right to life of a 2 month old embryo, or a 1 celled fertilized egg. The problem here is that an infant or someone who is mentally retarded has a difference in scale, they have lesser intelligence. A 2 month old embryo does not have a functioning brain, and a fertilized egg has no brain at all. There is a qualitative difference between no brain, or a brain that is not functioning, and a brain that is there is functioning, but to a lesser degree than other people. Ditto with circumcision, an argument often used in favor of this is that since parents have the right to consent to their children getting vaccinations or surgery to remove cancer, they therefore have the right to consent to circumcision. But there is a qualitative difference between vaccination (which doesn't remove a normal healthy body part), or surgery to save a child's life, and a medically unnecessary amputation of a normal healthy body part.

2. People who engage in them don't like accurate cost-benefit analysis of what they propose. In the case of guns, they talk endlessly about people killed by guns, but don't mention the number of lives saved by guns used in self defense.

3. People who engage in them are either useful idiots, or else have a real agenda which is different than their stated agenda. Those in favor of gun control have a real agenda of wanting to impose tyranny on people. Those against abortion want to control other people's sex lives. Those who demand the 'right' of parents to circumcise non-consenting infants have some sort of nuerotic emotional problem with normal human anatomy.