About that “Tanks and Nukes” Argument

While I was sitting around today I was thinking about that stupid “So you’re for people owning Nuclear weapons?” “Oh so you’re in favor of restrictions!” Argument.

I think the best blanket response we can have is to note that Nuclear weapons and other explosive items are restricted by the ATF with the FEL licences, things like Tank guns, auto-cannons, mounted machine guns, shoulder-fired rockets, and other such firearms are NFA items.

Currently, no matter how you feel about any of these items, one way or another, these laws are NOT being challenged. Also frankly if any challenges arrive, they will be incremental ones, like removing the Hughes Amendment, or taking Suppressors or Short Barreled firearms off the list. I certainly don’t see the whole NFA or FEL laws being taken off the books with one stroke of the pen.

So the next time one of these extreme arguments are put on the table, note that these arms are NOT being discussed for legalization, or liberalization at the moment. WHAT IS being discussed is restrictions on magazines (and there’s no reason to talk about 50 or 100 Rounders, because they’re talking TEN) and Semi-auto and “Non Sporting” firearms.

Everything else is arguing past the point, and my opinions of those things are irrelevant at this moment. Even if I want to be able to own a tactical nuke, a cluster bomb, or a fully armed Blackhawk Gunship, or an AC130 attack aircraft, its irrelevant, because the talk right now is CONFISCATION of basic rifles, shotguns, pistols and magazines.

We can talk about all that other stuff when bills are being introduced to legalize them. Until then, let’s not waste time talking building resort casinos on Mars, or ending the use of fossil fuels with cold-fusion power, because all of those things aren’t happening right now.

What do you think? And if you like this pass it on, both in the internet, and in your discussions with people who are thinking these issues have ANY place in the political discussion right now.

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to About that “Tanks and Nukes” Argument

  1. I always tell them that if they can build a nuke, they can keep it. As for tanks, I point out that plenty of people already own them.


    Big deal.

    The actual argument they are making is “Do you trust your neighbor with…” For us the answer is “Sure, why not?” Do I really care if my neighbor has an Abrams parked in his driveway? Not really. And if he lets me have a ride in it, I’ll promise to never complain about it ever!

    The gun control fanatics don’t trust their neighbors. They live in terror that their neighbor will decide to kill them. They act on this terror by trying to take weapons away from those neighbors they don’t trust. Yet they call us paranoid for planning for our own self defense.

  2. Eck! says:


    There is a similar but smaller group in CT. Visited once and it was a
    wonderful tour and lots to see and study and often touch. I remain
    amazed that we had people that would risk their lives to fight war in

    All the extreme talk from the gun grabbers is their projections. They want
    someone else to remove objects they fear in the belief they are safer without
    them. They live by belief and myth. That is a very demented concept. I do
    not tolerate the wild and outrageous claims or positions and will call them
    on it. While I’m at it, point out they are going to a procedural foul with an
    absurd argument and the discussion is terminated pending a return to
    the subject. I do sometimes encourage them to persist along those lines
    as well as then nobody can take them seriously. Nothing fails better than
    lost credibility.

    Or I just warp them around the axel with things possible to annoy and
    make clear absurdity demands sarcasm. Such as the Apache thing,
    really if you can afford a $15million chopper and operating cost of
    something well over 4000$/hour never mind ammo cost go for it.
    I’ll be laughing while they try to talk about or around that.

    Sometimes I have to invoke the bullshit rule, prove it or get walking.


  3. Kristopr says:

    The nuclear strawman.

    The second amendment was about Americans having the right to militia weapons.

    That would be anything a single person or small group can service and deploy: M-16s, and smaller crew served weapons.

    Nukes, and other WMDs don’t fall under that.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      A great debate point…for the debate in the unknown future. M-16s, Crew-served arms, and grenades and other explosives are all NFA items, or regulated explosives.

      I actually like your point, only at this time its useless, as nobody is even hearing cases on removing a Hughes Amendment, let alone allowing people to buy M16s or M60s as if they were buying a new revolver.

      That’s my point to avoiding this comment, as it gets us to spend time and cloud the water on a debate that needs to be focused. It seems that EVERY debate and interview I see with an anti-gun person wanting to discuss the topic with a pro-gun person involves the anti-gun person throwing out every topic under the sun, and never letting the pro-gun person finish one step in the debate process.

      I was having a discussion with a co-worker, and I was just trying to get him to understand how “Gun Death” isn’t a valid metric of public safety, and he was interrupting me comments about magazine size, and public opinion on guns. We need to be laser-focused, because this general tactic means no data is exchanged, an no debate ever happens.

      When we talk about repealing Hughes, or the NFA we can talk about what guns a civilian, or civilian militia member can have. Right now we need to make sure we can get to that debate, which we won’t if we can only own bolt-action hunting rifles.

  4. Gudis says:

    Talk about your Statist bullshit; how many hundreds of thousands have been killed with gov’t owned tanks and nukes? Good thing they’re in the safe hands of the state!

  5. TS says:

    To be fair, this is the same thing our side does when we say “so do you want to ban knives and baseball bats?” It is moving the argument further down the line and arguing there. Granted knives are a lot closer to guns than personal guns are to nuclear missiles, but it is using the same tactic. The other thing is when they try to draw the line between “assault weapons” and identically functioning guns that have a different shaped grip, they become the poster child for the term “splitting hairs”.

    I think it is important to highlight how more people are murdered with blunt objects than all rifles, which is more about showing how misguided their attacks are. Still, I think there is some merit to using the above argument. I do want to know if our opponents would also ban knives. I want to know if they think enacting the exact same laws for knife control would reduce stabbings, and if so- why not do it? And I will accept that they see guns as a bigger problem than knives or baseball bats and should be tackled first- but even if it saves just one life, you have to apply the same thinking to less deadly weapons too, right?

    When it is my turn to answer the questions, I say “yes, I think machines guns should be legal.” I think it is possible to start drawing a line when you are talking about something that does range damage, like an explosion, or something that is not distinctly targetable (like an airborne biological weapon). Releasing a cloud of anthrax as a form of self-defense really isn’t in your own best interest, nor can you assure that innocents won’t be affected. However, if they really want to pin me down, I would prefer to see the Second Amendment taken to heart and the citizen’s militia play an active role in the nation’s defense and become a neutral country. That means pretty much whatever the people can afford, and private militia groups can pool they money to buy some heavy artillery. The armed forces can still exist for the real expensive stuff that needs a career of training like aircraft and ships, but the idea is to supplement whatever the people can’t handle on their own (which includes nuclear capability), but only to the end of protecting our own boarders- no invasions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *