Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   The Club House (
-   -   Wmd (

McNabb11b 03-26-2009 07:54 PM

I have heard people use weapons of mass destruction as an argument for gun control. It seems like it is a stupid unfair argument, but I can't place my finger on exactly why. Any thoughts?

iloveguns 03-26-2009 08:05 PM

I guess if you could find a gun that held thousands and thousands of rounds and when you pulled the trigger it wiped out thousands in an instant , then you could call a gun that?:eek:

McNabb11b 03-26-2009 08:27 PM

Technically it is a weapon, or Arms, so the argument is that those who oppose gun control based on the Constitution also support people being able to obtain nuclear weapons.

mpd8488 03-26-2009 10:05 PM

Well you can argue it within the intent of the second amendment. We have the right to own small arms because we can use them to protect ourselves from criminals, our government, and other governments. A nuclear weapon or other WMD does not really serve that purpose because it is far more destructive. You can't lob a nuke anywhere in the U.S. because you will end up killing civilians. can't lob a nuke at a foreign country because in all likelyhood the citizens of that country are not our true enemies and it will simply result in the destruction of the U.S. Furthemore, the storage and upkeep of nuclear weapons (safe ones, that is) requires special facilities and a lot of personel. No individual or his family is really capable of storing, maintaining, and most importantly securing most WMDs.

In reality nobody is ever asking that question to be serious. It is an indicator that you are winning the argument and your opponent is trying to move the discussion to something else entirely to make you look like an extremist. In this case try to maintain your advantage by asking questions. Don't spout facts at them, that doesn't work. Only ask them questions, especially ones that can't be answered with Brady Bunch talking points. Eventually this will frustrate an unprepared opponent and they will resort to name calling, which means you just won the debate. The point isn't to convince your opponent, it is to convince any onlookers that we hold the legal, moral, and empirical high ground.

McNabb11b 03-26-2009 10:12 PM

Where would that line be drawn on small arms?

McNabb11b 03-26-2009 10:13 PM

Thanks for your input by the way. I guess that what was forgotten was the intended purpose of the second amendment.

mpd8488 03-26-2009 10:24 PM


Originally Posted by McNabb11b (Post 87406)
Where would that line be drawn on small arms?

There's a question for the ages.

Well according to some we should only be allowed to have weapons that were available in 1787. According to most, the status quo of everything short of full autos is okay. According to me, artillery should be legal :D

McNabb11b 03-26-2009 10:27 PM

I agree, only weapons that would only hit their intended target, If the user has half a brain that is.

mrm14 03-26-2009 11:02 PM

Atomic Annie

Originally Posted by McNabb11b (Post 87406)
Where would that line be drawn on small arms?

I think Atomic Annie also known as M65 Atomic Cannon would be the smallest gun, actually a 280mm cannon, that as a "Gun" could be considered a WMD. It was developed in 1950, test fired in Nevada in 1953 with a 15 kilo ton yeild, and fielded by the end of 1953 in the European and Korean theaters. It weighed 83.3 tons including cartridge weight, took 5 to 7 men to operate and had a max. range of 20 miles. With the improvements of rocket delivery systems and submarines it very soon became impractical and a bit silly. Annie was retired from service in 1963.

Benning Boy 03-27-2009 04:16 AM

I think we should be allowed nukes, for sporting purposes, of course.

Unfortunately, the two that qualify for C&R were left in Japan.:(

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.