Support NeoGAF

[Kad5]

http://blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/2011/08/is-this-a-good-idea-building-your-own-personal-nuclear-reactor.html

A kg of uranium 235 costs round about 10.000 Dollar. This is the price the government pays. You or me would pay waaaay more. To build a nuke you need at least 50 kg. => half a million just for the material. You would need materials to build it, a lab, a rocket, a way to target your rocket etc.

So yes i'm sure it will be feasible to possibly have nuclear reactors at home for energy purposes. But to build a WMD? That takes so much funding it isn't even funny.

 

[gcubed]

Why did you say "/thread?" You want the thread to be closed? Do you feel that the text of the second amendment should be posted without being discussed?

the only interpretation in the world is his interpretation. Thread OVAH

 

[DTKT]

How can you use the second amendment when it's obvious that there is no such thing as "well organized militia"?

If you were required to spend 2 days every month training with other member of your militia's "unit", you would be part of something. It seems that currently, depending in your state, individuals can buy guns willy-nilly.

Sorry, Canadians here. We don't like guns.

 

[Mondriaan]

A kg of uranium 235 costs round about 10.000 Dollar. This is the price the government pays. You or me would pay waaaay more. To build a nuke you need at least 50 kg. => half a million just for the material. You would need materials to build it, a lab, a rocket, a way to target your rocket etc.

So yes i'm sure it will be feasible to possibly have nuclear reactors at home for energy purposes. But to build a WMD? That takes so much funding it isn't even funny.

Why do you say it needs a rocket?

The only thing it needs is to be able to do is explode on command to qualify as an "arm". As to whether it's an actual nuclear blast or a conventional explosion that scatters radioactive material (which wouldn't require 50 kg of uranium), why should it matter?

 

[Flo_Evans]

How can you use the second amendment when it's obvious that there is no such thing as "well organized militia"?

If you were required to spend 2 days every month training with other member of your militia's "unit", you would be part of something. It seems that currently, depending in your state, individuals can buy guns willy-nilly.

Sorry, Canadians here. We don't like guns.

You are canadian so I guess its understandable you don't know we have such troops? It's called the national guard.

And there are plenty of other well organized militias, who train WAY more often than 2 days a month.

 

[Kinyou]

What institutions manage to build up the funds to obtain nukes? I'm sure you can answer that on your own. I promise you it isn't an individual.

But if someone could get his hands on one, you'd consider it to be his right to own it?

 

[Ventrue]

The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom allowed us to amend the constitution to get rid of the 2nd amendment if we wanted to. We don't want to. Therefore yes, the 2nd amendment is still the law.

Except that it's near impossible to get ANY amendment through today.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It kinda seem to me that what it is saying is that only people who are part of militias should carry arms.

 

[Kad5]

But if someone could get his hands on one, you'd consider it to be his right to own it?

Well if some individual managed to get his hands on a nuke that in itself isn't exactly immoral. It's when he actually uses it on innocent people. But I would imagine people would dissociate themselves from such an individual to the point of essentially creating some kind of de-facto embargo. And defense agencies of all kinds would have an issue with it so in any situation such an individual would be kept under some kind of watch most likely due to being a potential threat. The owner of the nuke would probably have a hard time doing business or getting insurance.

And of course right now it's illegal to have them anyway.

 

[q_q]

Well if some individual managed to get his hands on a nuke that in itself isn't exactly immoral. It's when he actually uses it on innocent people. But I would imagine people would dissociate themselves from such an individual to the point of essentially creating some kind of de-facto embargo. And defense agencies of all kinds would have an issue with it so in any situation such an individual would be kept under some kind of watch most likely due to being a potential threat. The owner of the nuke would probably have a hard time doing business or getting insurance.

And of course right now it's illegal to have them anyway.

What a hilarious attempt to avoid the question. You should be a politician.

 

[Flo_Evans]

It kinda seem to me that what it is saying is that only people who are part of militias should carry arms.

It's saying if people aren't allowed to own weapons they can't form militias.

It says a militia is a good thing, necessary even. Then it says that people have to be allowed to own weapons, so they can form a militia, if and when it is necessary.

Its really not that hard to figure out.

 

[Kad5]

What a hilarious attempt to avoid the question. You should be a politician.

I never avoided the question. No I don't think simply the fact of OWNING a nuke is immoral. But I also don't think any one person has the individual funds to even go about building one and even if one does manage to do it there are other factors that need to be considered such as social isolation. If my neighbor Bob decided to build a nuke I probably wouldn't associate with him. Hell i'd probably move far away from him. Any individual who owns a nuke would have insanely high insurance rates as well.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's saying if people aren't allowed to own weapons they can't form militias.

It says a militia is a good thing, necessary even. Then it says that people have to be allowed to own weapons, so they can form a militia, if and when it is necessary.

Its really not that hard to figure out.

Did the forefathers have an explanation for each amendment or is this stuff people had to guess?

Because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not follow smoothly from "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

I never avoided the question. No I don't think simply the fact of OWNING a nuke is immoral. But I also don't think any one person has the individual funds to even go about building one and even if one does manage to do it there are other factors that need to be considered such as social isolation. If my neighbor Bob decided to build a nuke I probably wouldn't associate with him. Hell i'd probably move far away from him. Any individual who owns a nuke would have insanely high insurance rates as well.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Did the forefathers have an explanation for each amendment or is this stuff people had to guess?

Because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not follow smoothly from "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".



This is ridiculous.

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is just archaic language structure, but obvious if you read the other writings of the people who wrote it.

 

[Kad5]

This is ridiculous.

Well then let's come to the logical conclusion that no one individual or organization should own nukes then. Including governments. And I should remind you that states to this day are the only entities that have managed to efficiently obtain the funds to create such weapons.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

How can you use the second amendment when it's obvious that there is no such thing as "well organized militia"?

If you were required to spend 2 days every month training with other member of your militia's "unit", you would be part of something. It seems that currently, depending in your state, individuals can buy guns willy-nilly.

Sorry, Canadians here. We don't like guns.

I mean the matter has been settled. Regardless of opinions. The 2nd amendment stands.

Last I checked there were guns in Canada.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Well then let's come to the logical conclusion that no one individual or organization should own nukes then. Including governments. And I should remind you that states to this day are the only entities that have managed to efficiently obtain the funds to create such weapons.

Multinational (and just national) corporations certainly have the means of funding the creation of nuclear weapons, as do a community of individuals if they pool together their resources and knowledge.

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is just archaic language structure, but obvious if you read the other writings of the people who wrote it.

Alright, thanks for the explanation.
Does gun regulation or required gun tests/training count as infringement of that right?
So long as the people, e.g everyone, has the opportunity to undergo these gun competency tests and training, it seems to me like that right wouldn't have been infringed.

 

[Ikael]

I really don't get the whole "strict gun laws = taking away mah guns". You can have both things at the same time: a high rate of gun ownership and strict laws that limit how they are employed. And yep, while there's little to none correlation between gun ownership and crime, there is a huge correlation between stric gun laws and crime.

Countries such as Finland loves their guns as well (lots of hunters living in isolation up there), but they are smart about them, too. Same goes for other peaceful yet heavily armed countries such as Switzerland. Mandatory gun training and mental ilness profiling can do wonders, me thinks.

 

[Sneds]

The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom allowed us to amend the constitution to get rid of the 2nd amendment if we wanted to. We don't want to. Therefore yes, the 2nd amendment is still the law.

I understand how amendments work. My point was that the important aspect of this issue is the bolded section not the views of the founding fathers. Quoting the constitution shouldn't automatically 'win' discussions on whether gun controls are wise.

Also I'm not sure who 'we' is in the bolded. It seems as though some Americans would like to get rid of the second amendment.

 

[iamblades]

Multinational (and just national) corporations certainly have the means of funding the creation of nuclear weapons, as do a community of individuals if they pool together their resources and knowledge.



Alright, thanks for the explanation.
Does gun regulation or required gun tests/training count as infringement of that right.
So long as the people, e.g everyone, has the opportunity to undergo these gun competency tests and training, it seems to me like that right wouldn't have been infringed.

That's a hard question to answer, it is really a case by case decision. If you use the same thought process the courts have used for the other amendments, particularly the first amendment, you'd have to be very careful.

The background check system currently used would be fine, because it only really affects people who have forfeited their rights, but a mandatory training would completely out based on every interpretation of the other amendments. Look up prior restraint for instance.

 

[Kad5]

Multinational (and just national) corporations certainly have the means of funding the creation of nuclear weapons, as do a community of individuals if they pool together their resources and knowledge.

Yes you can argue that but of course corporations are entities created by states and are given benefits such as limited liability. Many corporations are also subsidized by states.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't give money to an entity that would use the money to invest in building nukes. Of course I have to pay tax money to the government through force.

 

[Htown]

It kinda seem to me that what it is saying is that only people who are part of militias should carry arms.

The militia is currently defined by Congress as every adult male over the age of 18.

Also, you're not reading that correctly in any case.

It's not saying "for as long as a militia is necessary, let those people have guns."

It's saying, "a militia is necessary. For that reason, the people (which is the same term used to apply every other universal constitutional right in the document to the full citizenry of the US) cannot be prevented from bearing arms."

EDIT: Correction, according to 10 USC § 311 -

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[MutFox]

The 2nd Amendment...

What types of guns existed during this time?
What was the highest calibre military grade gun at the time?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

The 2nd Amendment...

What types of guns existed during this time?
What was the highest calibre military grade gun at the time?

Flintlock pistols and rifles and muskets. Cannons, too. If they had anything like what we've had since WWI, there is no fucking way the 2nd Amendment would have been finalized the way it was. Of course, it may have been that we wouldn't have been able to win the Revolutionary War, either.

 

[iamblades]

Yes you can argue that but of course corporations are entities created by states and are given benefits such as limited liability. Many corporations are also subsidized by states.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't give money to an entity that would use the money to invest in building nukes. Of course I have to pay tax money to the government through force.

Also it's worth noting that much of the engineering that went into making nuclear weapons was(and is) done by private companies. And many nuclear facilities are owned and operated by private companies. Look up Bechtel for instance.

 

[SolKane]

If you can 100% guarantee that no violent harm will befall me or my family, I will gladly get rid of this gun.

This is absurd thinking. You're more likely to die in a car accident than by a crime perpetrated by a gun. I hope you don't drive.

 

[Kad5]

Also it's worth noting that much of the engineering that went into making nuclear weapons was(and is) done by private companies. And many nuclear facilities are owned and operated by private companies. Look up Bechtel for instance.

Again many of those are subsidized by the government. Not to mention that no matter the weapon if someone is threatening me I would have every right to act in self-defense in any way possible under threat of coercion. Even if it means going to court.

 

[Dark Octave]

Isoroku Yamamoto, who was responsible for planning and executing the Pearl Harbor attack was also asked to plan an attack on the west coast of the US. He was pretty much like "Uhhh no. There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", meaning that every tom, dick and harry in the US is a potential soldier.

Without going into detail (but I can if needed), there are also a bunch of countries that have had horrible things happen to them once they established gun control and the citizens couldn't defend themselves.

I'm for gun control and I think the US and the world would be a better place without guns. I think the idea that more guns makes a safer country on a day to day basis is ridiculous, but I honestly have yet to come up with an argument against these points I just described.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I'm for gun control and I think the US and the world would be a better place without guns. I think the idea that more guns makes a safer country on a day to day basis is ridiculous, but I honestly have yet to come up with an argument against these points I just described.

It takes the willingness to not fear that your neighbor or someone will come after you putting you into a position that pushes you to join the arms race. That fear is and has been stoked by the arms companies, their constituent political activism groups, and the politicians whose platforms rely upon those voters. Basically, don't be a chicken shit about possibilities...and that's a hard sell when people thrust and massage numbers and play up latent racism and socio-economic divides. There's little political will to do the right thing, but even less coming from organized citizens. Fear, man, is a powerful motivator.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Isoroku Yamamoto, who was responsible for planning and executing the Pearl Harbor attack was also asked to plan an attack on the west coast of the US. He was pretty much like "Uhhh no. There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", meaning that every tom, dick and harry in the US is a potential soldier.

Without going into detail (but I can if needed), there are also a bunch of countries that have had horrible things happen to them once they established gun control and the citizens couldn't defend themselves.

I'm for gun control and I think the US and the world would be a better place without guns. I think the idea that more guns makes a safer country on a day to day basis is ridiculous, but I honestly have yet to come up with an argument against these points I just described.

Pretty sure this is made up. Sounds cool though.

 

[elrechazado]

Nobody should be allowed to have them but me.

I never knew rosie odonnel posted on gaf.

 

[Piggus]

I just bought a new shotgun. I use it for trap/target shooting and upland game bird hunting. Am I danger to society, Gaf?

Sorry, Canadians here. We don't like guns.

Haha what bullshit. I know numerous Canadian gun owners. You guys are in the top 15 of countries with the highest number of guns per capita, currently sitting around 30 guns per 100 people.

 

[Dmented]

Pretty sure this is made up. Sounds cool though.

The quote is "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." But there is no evidence that Yamamoto said this. Still cool.

 

[Stet]

2nd amendment says we can bear arms. Also it is safer if more people have guns on them as seen in Switzerland and the wild west. Switzerland has the lowest crime ratein the world and the wild west never got more than like 5 deaths a year, EVER.

Yeah but there were even fewer murders in caveman times so we should all clearly go back to sticks and stones.

 

[J-Rzez]

It takes the willingness to not fear that your neighbor or someone will come after you putting you into a position that pushes you to join the arms race. That fear is and has been stoked by the arms companies, their constituent political activism groups, and the politicians whose platforms rely upon those voters. Basically, don't be a chicken shit about possibilities...and that's a hard sell when people thrust and massage numbers and play up latent racism and socio-economic divides. There's little political will to do the right thing, but even less coming from organized citizens. Fear, man, is a powerful motivator.

It takes the willingness to not fear that all guns are for evil purposes and will kill you regardless of the hundreds of millions in circulation in the US. This fear is and has been stoked by the media, and the politicians whose platforms rely upon those voters. Basically don't be a chicken shit about the possibilities... and that's a hard sell when people thrust and massage numbers and play up fear-mongering and speak on what they don't know about, or don't want others to have something because they don't like something, and also can't grasp the type of criminals we have in society, along with the fact that when someone is "sick" they'll do harm regardless of type of instrument. There's little political will to do the wrong thing, and even less coming from organized citizens as most have a solid grasp on reality. Fear, man, is a powerful motivator.

I just bought a new shotgun. I use it for trap/target shooting and upland game bird hunting. Am I danger to society, Gaf?

You will be when the mind altering aspects of having a firearm in your possession causes you to run into a KFC and shoot the place up. Which, is inevitable. A matter of not "if", but, "when".

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Cute, J-Rzez.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes you can argue that but of course corporations are entities created by states and are given benefits such as limited liability. Many corporations are also subsidized by states.

And I don't know about you but I wouldn't give money to an entity that would use the money to invest in building nukes. Of course I have to pay tax money to the government through force.

And if they don't tell you until they have? A lot of stuff in your worldview depends on people not lying.

 

[prwxv3]

we need some gun control laws. However they have to not be retarded like the gun free zones bill and have to be written by people that know what they fuck they are talking about when they discuss guns. I dont want anyone that has never even touched a gun and that spouts off buzzwords like "assault weapons" writing gun control laws.

 

[Fusebox]

As soon as the words 'gun' and 'culture' start showing up next to each other you know your society has an issue.

 

[Piggus]

You will be when the mind altering aspects of having a firearm in your possession causes you to run into a KFC and shoot the place up. Which, is inevitable. A matter of not "if", but, "when".

The sad part is there are people who actually think this shit. I've owned guns for about 15 years, and that ownership began with very strict lessons in safety and responsible handling of guns. Better gun safety education would go a long way in preventing accidents. In fact I'd totally support a law that requires people to take a gun safety class and get a certificate before being able to buy a gun.

People who say "herp derp just ban guns why u need them anyways??" are about as intelligent as a sack of hammers and know nothing about US history, culture, and why the vast majority of people own guns. I own guns because I can, and because they're fun to shoot as a hobby. I don't NEED them lol, but I have the right to own them. There needs to be a way to make it harder for criminals to get guns but removing everyone's right to own one is so simple-minded and stupid that it makes me wonder if the people who spout that crap thought about the issue for more than three seconds before opening their mouth.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

The sad part is there are people who actually think this shit. I've owned guns for about 15 years, and that ownership began with very strict lessons in safety and responsible handling of guns. Better gun safety education would go a long way in preventing accidents. In fact I'd totally support a law that requires people to take a gun safety class and get a certificate before being able to buy a gun.

People who say "herp derp just ban guns why u need them anyways??" are about as intelligent as a sack of hammers and know nothing about US history, culture, and why the vast majority of people own guns. I own guns because I can, and because they're fun to shoot as a hobby. I don't NEED them lol, but I have the right to own them. There needs to be a way to make it harder for criminals to get guns but removing everyone's right to own one is so simple-minded and stupid that it makes me wonder if the people who spout that crap thought about the issue for more than three seconds before opening their mouth.

Refreshingly honest. I'd have a lot more respect for pro gun people if they admitted this rather than acting like they're in constant mortal danger if they don't have one.

 

[Piggus]

Refreshingly honest.

I wish more people were honest about it. But that said, people "clinging" to their guns is perfectly understandable when you realize how much they actually cost and you realize that most of those "clingers" are safe gun owners and not using them to cause harm. How would you feel if someone tried to take something from you worth hundreds of dollars due to the irresponsible action of a relatively tiny group of others? My grandpa for example collects guns. Mostly old Winchester rifles and the entire collection (which is locked in a huge safe) is probably worth about $20,000. The value of many of those guns (including a Browning shotgun that I own) is rising faster than inflation, making them a legitimate investment. That doesn't even include the sentimental value of some of them. He has a great story behind each one. Should he have $20k in assets taken away from him due to the irresponsibility of others? This is where the "outright ban" argument really starts to break down when you look at individual examples of responsible gun owners.

EDIT: I'm mostly talking about owners who use their guns for target shooting, collecting, or hunting. Home defense is a touchy subject, but I'd be willing to bet that most people who own a gun for home defense don't really need it and are just looking for an excuse to keep a loaded shotgun under their bed. There are always exceptions to the rule though. If someone were to break into my home, just the sound of a shotgun pump would probably be enough to deter thugs unless they're also armed and ready for a shootout. I keep my shotgun locked up and unloaded though so I probably wouldn't even be able to get to it.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Refreshingly honest. I'd have a lot more respect for pro gun people if they admitted this rather than acting like they're in constant mortal danger if they don't have one.

Legal gun owners in America are under no obligation to "explain themselves" to the anti-gun crowd to justify why they choose to arm themselves. What metric does one use to determine *need*? Do I *need" a 12ga Shotgun? Do I *need* a dog? Do I *need* an alarm system? Do I *need* a car?

And if they are or aren't "true needs" (as opposed to "wants") then does that change anything regardless?

Technically the only thing I physically need is food, water, shelter. Thankfully the bar has been raised in the few thousand years of civilization. I hope the day comes where one doesn't "need" or "want" a weapon. But that day ain't today. I'll tell you that shit right now....

EDIT: I'm mostly talking about owners who use their guns for target shooting, collecting, or hunting. Home defense is a touchy subject, but I'd be willing to bet that most people who own a gun for home defense don't really need it and are just looking for an excuse to keep a loaded shotgun under their bed. There are always exceptions to the rule though. If someone were to break into my home, just the sound of a shotgun pump would probably be enough to deter thugs unless they're also armed and ready for a shootout. I keep my shotgun locked up and unloaded though so I probably wouldn't even be able to get to it.

I took target shooting as a hobby with my best friend. He shoots, I shoot. We shoot together. It's a fun if not expensive hobby. But it's a hobby that I consider to be advantageous in terms of defense. I own a shotgun for home defense and I'll say I'd rather have it and never need it than need it and never have it. That's why I keep it in the bedroom fully loaded with the chamber empty and the safety on. If shit hits the fan I can always rack it. If the shit continues to hit the fan and sprays shit all over the place I can at least defend myself. Shit, I just came back from a shop to get a flashlight mount for the damned thing, LMAO. Do I really stay up late worrying about being robbed? No. More likely than not IF shit were to happen it'd be while my girl and I were at work. But I keep it just in case. I don't think a person should need to justify it further.

I suspect that the need is often overplayed, thats all. And for a group thats under no obligation to explain it, they do an awful lot of it.

Considering the constant yelling of "ban all the bad things!" from people the moment a tragedy like last night in Chicago and today in NY happens yes, they do an awful lot of it. Despite the fact that violent crime in the US is at a 40 year low.....

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I suspect that the need is often overplayed, thats all. And for a group thats under no obligation to explain it, they do an awful lot of it.

 

[Richfield]

Without going into detail (but I can if needed), there are also a bunch of countries that have had horrible things happen to them once they established gun control and the citizens couldn't defend themselves.

Please, do go on.

 

[Vilix]

Isoroku Yamamoto, who was responsible for planning and executing the Pearl Harbor attack was also asked to plan an attack on the west coast of the US. He was pretty much like "Uhhh no. There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", meaning that every tom, dick and harry in the US is a potential soldier.

That's actually what happened. At the onset of WWII volunteer militias were formed on the west coast to spot for possible air raids and amphibious attack by the Japanese. At least one 2 man scout sub was destroyed off the west coast.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Isoroku Yamamoto, who was responsible for planning and executing the Pearl Harbor attack was also asked to plan an attack on the west coast of the US. He was pretty much like "Uhhh no. There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass", meaning that every tom, dick and harry in the US is a potential soldier.

Without going into detail (but I can if needed), there are also a bunch of countries that have had horrible things happen to them once they established gun control and the citizens couldn't defend themselves.

I'm for gun control and I think the US and the world would be a better place without guns. I think the idea that more guns makes a safer country on a day to day basis is ridiculous, but I honestly have yet to come up with an argument against these points I just described.

He actually never said that but it's a good fake quote.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

He actually never said that but it's a good fake quote.

Yea, I gotta agree with this. That quote isn't authentic.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Speaking of unauthentic quotes, fix yours mammoth

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Speaking of unauthentic quotes, fix yours mammoth