The False Debate

Found this video being promoted by the anti-gunners. He made some interesting points…also some interesting omissions:

He CONSTANTLY makes references to the common saw of “Everybody owning a nuclear bomb”, this is a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy, still he makes a good point that there are SOME limits. Still those limits are just as easily set by pure practicality than by “weapon control”. The components of a nuclear weapon are so toxic and hazardous that we don’t even need to craft them into a bomb before we have a danger. Also Nuclear weapons, as well as frag-grenades, shoulder-fired rockets, or claymores are just so indiscriminate that to use them for sport or defense effectively without collateral damage is almost impossible.

Of course people can and DO make explosives for recreation , and without incident, but few people have the property that Joe does to have his fun. Tho smaller scale use of explosives is pretty common and fun…hell just look at the 4th of July!

Still his analogies fall flat when he compares speed limits and statutory rape which are BEHAVIORS to banning or restricting guns which are ITEMS. Also he uses lots of belittling statements, insults, and tone…yet he doesn’t outright say where his line in the sand is.

He implies that its .223 Semi-auto rifles, and maybe magazines that hold a certain amount. But notice he stays away from that issue for most of the video.

This is how our opposition debates. They complain about 100 round magazines…and then act to ban anything holding more than 10. They talk about “Weapons of War”, but then seek to ban hunting and target rifles!

Again, more anti-gun people talking about “Debate”, but never actually foster one.

Oh well, with a little luck this will keep them at bay indefinitely…but it means we need to keep bringing the debate to them!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The False Debate

  1. Old NFO says:

    I just ask em to point out where hunting is in the 2nd Amendment, and then ask them if they are ALSO applying that banning to LEOs and the military.

  2. Kristophr says:

    It’s the Nuclear Strawman again.

    The Second Amendment is there to protect our right to have the same combat load as a infantryman.

    Get back to me when the Army issues soldiers with individual nukes.

  3. Eck! says:

    If that’s their idea of a spokesperson Then its clear why they deserve to loose.

    Want debate then stop, listen and don’t spit on me. Otherwise talk to my back.


  4. dagamore says:

    Oddly i do think that if you can afford it, and can store it safely, then yes you should have a atomic device. I do think that we should be allowed to own hand grenades, and full auto belt fed weapons.

    I am also for getting rid of the speed limits, but you hurt anyone with anything, be it your car or your 10KT Fission device, you better be in the right, and it better be in self defense, or be prepared to pay for it. Personal responsibility covers everything, from not being a drunk driving jackass, to caring a sidearm on a daily bases.

    I am against all forms of required training for firearms, but not for driving, one is a right the other is not. I am against all safe storage laws, and yet i own safes. I dont need to take any training to use my 1st, nor do i need any training to be protected under the 4th and 5th amendments, why then the 2nd? I take all the training i can afford, and then some if you listen to my credit cards(they lie), I also have safes and firearm locks on my weapons. I think everyone should get some training, and should have safe storage for all weapons, but to require it by law i think is unreasonable.

    I have auto insurance not because i am looking to get in an accident, i have renters insurance not because i want my apt to burn down, i have fire extinguishers in the house and the car not because i want to start fires, but if one starts i want to stop it quick. If i lived in a free state(HI not a free state) I would carry everyday.

  5. Eck! says:


    If you’ve not seen it.. one of the complete arguments I’ve read to date on why the Assault Weapons ban failed. And likely will continue to make us unsafe.

    I was going to claim fair use and clip a bit but though better of it as it is important
    to read the whole thing. I feel strongly is you need a reference this may be one of
    the most useful.


  6. Kristophr says:

    Dagamore: Don’t go full-retard libertarian.

    Get back to me when they make a nuclear weapon shooting range on the moon.

    Until then, possessing a live nuke is exactly like pointing a loaded rifle into the face of everyone who lives within 10 miles of the nuke’s storage location.

    The people you point that weapon at will settle your shit violently.

  7. Druid says:

    The nuke strawman is pure fantasy… uhh, reducio absurd… whatever

    Started the vid without sound. Could not get past the mannerisms.
    If posting a comment at the vid was w/o registering I would have told the guy to watch himself w/o sound and wonder why he shouldn’t be locked up with the other crazy homeless guys. We don’t lock up crazy homeless guys… maybe we should if this douche is typical.

  8. Geodkyt says:

    Well, “arms” doesn’t mean “weapons, nor do “weapons” mean “arms”. Some arms are weapons, and some weapons are arms – and some non-weapons are also “arms”.

    “Arms” means the full minimum combat kit of an individual soldier. His, “killing kit”; not his “sustainment” kit, not his clothing, nor his “unit issue”.

    You could have Cavalry (yes, people, Cavalry is still a branch), Artillery, etc. personal kit, just as you can have Infantry personal kit (“arms”). “Arms” in the 18th Century included more than just the gun & ammo — a “stand of arms”, in fact, was ALL of the minimum equipment you needed to be an effective individual soldier of that branch/MOS. Not your uniform, boots, tentage, or any “unit” equipment — just a full set of combat equipment in standard use, including sidearms (bayonets, swords, sometimes axes and pistols) and load carrying gear [“web gear”]. When personal armor was in common use, armor was in included in “arms” — so laws against general possession of body armor also run afoul of the 2nd Amendment’s protection of “arms”.

    Note that even in the 1780s and 1790s, the horse and the cannon were not considered the “arms” of a cavalryman or artilleryman (although neither was prohibited). The saddle, pistols, sabre, artillery tools, etc., were the “arms” of those branches. The cannon (although not banned in the 18th Century) was not considered “arms” — it was specifically in a category of “pieces of ordnance“, a parallel but separate category similar to “arms”, but basically meaning crew served stuff — a field gun doesn’t so much belong to the gunner as the gunner belongs to the gun. The gun captain may have personally signed for it (just as the captain of an SSBN or CVN signs for everything onboard), but it is a “unit” weapon.

    The individual weapons carried by the crew and the tools to work that piece [linstock, sponge, rammer, gunner’s stiletto, etc.] were the “arms” of the Artillery, just as a musket cartridge box [web gear] were part of the arms of the Infantry. Grenades, although used by Infantry (Google “grenadier”) were not “arms”, they were “munitions” and “ordnance” — although the lanyarded matchcase often was considered part of the “arms” of a grenadier, even in the days where “Grenadier” was merely an honor title for the elite of the regiment. (No match case means no lighting grenades; so even though Grenadiers no longer spent much of their time hucking grenades, it was considered essential to the job description to have the matchcase to be a Grenadier. Thus, for members of Grenadier units, the matchcase was considered part of the “arms”, not just part of the regimental uniform like the stupid hat. Blame the British Army — 400 years of tradition unhampered by logic, where “uniform regulations” is an oxymoron. ;P )

    Nowadays, I’d say thinks like plotting tables, aiming stakes, commo, rangefinders, optionally designators, etc., would be part of the arms of Artillery, just as a military pattern shoulder weapon in a common service round, sidearm, bayonet, IBA & K-pot, eye pro, MOLLE vest, etc., would be arms of the modern Infantry.

    I’d say that nuclear weapons, missiles, heavy tripod mounted machineguns, etc., are a Hell of a lot closer to the 18th century idea of “ordnance” than they are to “arms”. Doesn’t mean they should all be unilaterally banned (although I can make a good case where an “oops” automatically involves the whole neighborhood or city, all at once), doesn’t even mean they are not protected by the Constitution in some manner or another (reference 9th and 10th Amendments, privacy “penumbras”, etc.), only that they are not explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.

    In the paraphrased words of a Heinlein character, “I don’t consider a bomb a weapon – you can’t point it someone’s head.

    I’m OK with requiring registration, licensing, safe storage, training, and “show cause” for nukes. They aren’t “arms”, and frankly, anyone able and competent to acquire or build one will either have no trouble complying or wouldn’t comply with ANY law anyway. I think the current regulations regarding licensing, safe storage, and safe use of explosives seem to work fine (less severe “oops” costs than a nuke, so less stringent regs are suitable.)

Leave a Reply

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