Conquer Club

The fear of technological advancement in the field of weaponry if nothing new, nearly nine hundred years ago the pope banned the crossbow's use against Christians, and yet in comparison to arms used in recent shootings; a crossbow is ridiculously underpowered.
Still, weapons manufactures continue to make more upgrades and advancements in the field, often just for private enthusiasts, should a line be drawn to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands? Can private collectors even be trusted with the more powerful models?

Illegal arms trafficking is a contributing a factor in many modern conflicts, from Mexican drug wars to middle eastern conflicts.

On the other hand once advancement stops, it is up to the civilizations more covert operations to ensure they do not fall too far behind potential enemies, this in turn creates paranoid "cold war" situations.
Many people even go so far as to say it is their right to keep militias and doomsday bunkers to ensure their own survival.
And of course for the less extreme person not worried about the coming zombie apocalypse, there is the matter of keeping effective self defense against criminals, many of these people could be overpowered by burglars without some form of protection.

In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

/ wrote:Illegal arms trafficking is a contributing a factor in many modern conflicts, from Mexican drug wars to middle eastern conflicts.

The Mexican drug war was "legal" arms trafficking: Fast And Furious.

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

Yes, there is no reason at all why every person in the United States shouldn't own their own F-22. You freaking yutz.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

Yes, there is no reason at all why every person in the United States shouldn't own their own F-22. You freaking yutz.

Since when was this thread about fighter planes? Even all the poll options clearly discuss personal weaponry. I think you're calling the wrong person a yutz.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

Yes, there is no reason at all why every person in the United States shouldn't own their own F-22. You freaking yutz.

Since when was this thread about fighter planes?

When you said "If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it." You freaking yutz.

Night Strike wrote:I think you're calling the wrong person a yutz.

That's probably true, but I'm trying to be nice.

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

What a ridiculous statement to make, I suggest you retract it.

pmchugh wrote:

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

What a ridiculous statement to make, I suggest you retract it.

Why? Just because your government doesn't protect your rights doesn't mean we should hand our rights over to our government.

I want a minigun.

Night Strike wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

Night Strike wrote:In the United States, every person has the right to bear arms, so the only reason that right should be infringed upon is if the person surrendered their Constitutional rights due to being convicted of certain crimes. If the marketplace develops better guns, then the citizen should have access to it.

What a ridiculous statement to make, I suggest you retract it.

Why? Just because your government doesn't protect your rights doesn't mean we should hand our rights over to our government.

OK, I have a developed a handgun which would destroy the entire western world with one pull of the trigger. Your move.

Was the right to bear arms given to us by God too?

Just curious. Not trolling. I want to see your position here.

GreecePwns wrote:Was the right to bear arms given to us by God too?

Just curious. Not trolling. I want to see your position here.

The right to protect oneself and one's property was, and the best way to protect that right is through personal arms. The founders recognized how little control people had over their personal protection when the British government confiscated munitions, so they made sure our government couldn't do it.

Well then the right would have come from the founders of the nation, wouldn't it have?

GreecePwns wrote:Well then the right would have come from the founders, wouldn't it have?

No, the right to self-protection has always existed. The founders just made sure that the government could not take away the easiest form of self-protection.

When did God give us these rights, exactly?

GreecePwns wrote:When did God give us these rights, exactly?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." From our very creation we were instilled with the right to life, which the government is in place to protect and ensure. We also have the fundamental ability to protect ourselves when we are in danger, and we have the reasonable expectation that the government will not interfere with our ability to protect ourselves.

So God wrote the Constitution?

I have a lot of weapons, I mean A LOT! I'm basically armed to the teeth.

IIRC the USA SCOTUS in striking down the DC handgun ban in 2008 said the intent of the authors of the second amendment was to protect firearms for "traditionally lawful purposes" which seems to preclude access to a howitzer or M60 since there's no tradition of lawful, private use of artillery or crew-served weapons.

/ wrote:The fear of technological advancement in the field of weaponry if nothing new, nearly nine hundred years ago the pope banned the crossbow's use against Christians, and yet in comparison to arms used in recent shootings; a crossbow is ridiculously underpowered.
Still, weapons manufactures continue to make more upgrades and advancements in the field, often just for private enthusiasts, should a line be drawn to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands? Can private collectors even be trusted with the more powerful models?

Illegal arms trafficking is a contributing a factor in many modern conflicts, from Mexican drug wars to middle eastern conflicts.

On the other hand once advancement stops, it is up to the civilizations more covert operations to ensure they do not fall too far behind potential enemies, this in turn creates paranoid "cold war" situations.
Many people even go so far as to say it is their right to keep militias and doomsday bunkers to ensure their own survival.
And of course for the less extreme person not worried about the coming zombie apocalypse, there is the matter of keeping effective self defense against criminals, many of these people could be overpowered by burglars without some form of protection.

You left off quite a few options.

For example, to combine hunting rifles with military grade weapons as similar is part of the problem. I would like to see more restrictions on hunting, but not the rifles, etc per se.. I want some more seafety education that includes knowledge of the many new restrictive rules and the penalties attached. Hunters and people in general to have more awareness of wildlife populations (yep, ESPECIALLY those folks in big cities who may never visit a "wild" area). That's not about guns, per se, its about having a safe and reasonable sport.

On the other hand, you have a pretty broad category for military grade weapons... and then those that are used by people like gangs, etc.

/ wrote:The fear of technological advancement in the field of weaponry if nothing new, nearly nine hundred years ago the pope banned the crossbow's use against Christians, and yet in comparison to arms used in recent shootings; a crossbow is ridiculously underpowered.
Still, weapons manufactures continue to make more upgrades and advancements in the field, often just for private enthusiasts, should a line be drawn to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands? Can private collectors even be trusted with the more powerful models?

What advances most technology for weaponry? The state, especially the US state. So, I'm not really concerned with the very minor fraction of private collectors and their .45 magnums or .50 anti-tank rifles.

/ wrote:Illegal arms trafficking is a contributing a factor in many modern conflicts, from Mexican drug wars to middle eastern conflicts.

The largest distributors of weaponry are governments--IIRC, the main contributors are the US, Chinese, Russian, French, UK, and German governments. These transfers can be "legal" even if the recipients use the weapons to oppress civilians or launch wars.

/ wrote:On the other hand once advancement stops, it is up to the civilizations more covert operations to ensure they do not fall too far behind potential enemies, this in turn creates paranoid "cold war" situations.

The problem with the government is that it is incapable of knowing when "enough is enough." Another problem is that anyone, who challenges their power (however that is perceived, which isn't really objective), must be stopped, thus leading to a "cold war" scenario.

/ wrote:Many people even go so far as to say it is their right to keep militias and doomsday bunkers to ensure their own survival.
And of course for the less extreme person not worried about the coming zombie apocalypse, there is the matter of keeping effective self defense against criminals, many of these people could be overpowered by burglars without some form of protection.

Security through private orderings, common law, and competitive legal systems seems like a better alternative than state-provided security.

NS' advocating that every one should access to weaponry is a bit irresponsible, even if the market would provide it. The laws for such weapons should hold the manufacturers more liable, thus incentivizing the providers to be more selective in their clientele (i.e. no limited liability). An institution for market-disciplined gun control is possible through competitive legal systems--not legislating bodies and their monopoly privileges on manufacturing law suitable to themselves and their donors (US government, status quo).

BigBallinStalin wrote:NS' advocating that every one should access to weaponry is a bit irresponsible, even if the market would provide it. The laws for such weapons should hold the manufacturers more liable, thus incentivizing the providers to be more selective in their clientele (i.e. no limited liability). An institution for market-disciplined gun control is possible through competitive legal systems--not legislating bodies and their monopoly privileges on manufacturing law suitable to themselves and their donors (US government, status quo).

If you would, please expand on this. Are you suggesting that firearms manufacturers don't deserve the same protections from frivolous lawsuits that other industries are afforded?

The worst abuse is the export of weaponry to repressive governments (Sri Lanka, Fiji, Indonesia, Burma etc.). A member of a street gang getting his hands on a fire arm and shooting someone he doesn't like is a relatively small problem. Aggressive regimes buying weapons in large numbers and using them to slaughter to civilians is a problem that people especially need to wake up to. Particularly as the regimes are being brazenly sold these weapons by the governments and arms manufacturers of other countries. The whole process is welcomed with open arms. A government will celebrate when Indonesia spends $1billion in their country, purchasing guns that they know will then be shipped to Indonesia and used to kill civilians.

Anyone hoping to tackle weaponry misuse needs to start not with illegal gang trading but with 'legitimate' international arms trade. As long as it is 'okay' to sell cluster bombs to the Syrian government, a smaller problem like illegal arms trading to criminals will never be taken seriously.

PLAYER57832 wrote:For example, to combine hunting rifles with military grade weapons as similar is part of the problem. I would like to see more restrictions on hunting, but not the rifles, etc per se.. I want some more seafety education that includes knowledge of the many new restrictive rules and the penalties attached. Hunters and people in general to have more awareness of wildlife populations (yep, ESPECIALLY those folks in big cities who may never visit a "wild" area). That's not about guns, per se, its about having a safe and reasonable sport.

On the other hand, you have a pretty broad category for military grade weapons... and then those that are used by people like gangs, etc.

Well, the grading system is more about the potential justification a person can use to obtain said weapon, in relation to its firepower range, for example it is illogical to own artillery that can send deadly shrapnel through a solid wall for "self defense".


To others, I am curious, particularly to those of first world nations, how owning weapons and keeping maintained militias ensures liberty to the common citizen? When the American constitution was drafted it was musket vs musket, but now we live in an age when governments have access to napalm, carpet bombing, and tanks, it's fairly likely in my opinion no matter how well regulated a local militia may be, it is impossible to theoretically "win" against a first world government without international intervention.

/ wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:For example, to combine hunting rifles with military grade weapons as similar is part of the problem. I would like to see more restrictions on hunting, but not the rifles, etc per se.. I want some more seafety education that includes knowledge of the many new restrictive rules and the penalties attached. Hunters and people in general to have more awareness of wildlife populations (yep, ESPECIALLY those folks in big cities who may never visit a "wild" area). That's not about guns, per se, its about having a safe and reasonable sport.

On the other hand, you have a pretty broad category for military grade weapons... and then those that are used by people like gangs, etc.

Well, the grading system is more about the potential justification a person can use to obtain said weapon, in relation to its firepower range, for example it is illogical to own artillery that can send deadly shrapnel through a solid wall for "self defense".


To others, I am curious, particularly to those of first world nations, how owning weapons and keeping maintained militias ensures liberty to the common citizen? When the American constitution was drafted it was musket vs musket, but now we live in an age when governments have access to napalm, carpet bombing, and tanks, it's fairly likely in my opinion no matter how well regulated a local militia may be, it is impossible to theoretically "win" against a first world government without international intervention.

They like to claim that the military members will vastly turn against the government when they want them to (and thus having the weaponry of the government). It's possible, within the scenario of "could it possibly happen", but it is also strikingly unlikely.

/ wrote:To others, I am curious, particularly to those of first world nations, how owning weapons and keeping maintained militias ensures liberty to the common citizen? When the American constitution was drafted it was musket vs musket, but now we live in an age when governments have access to napalm, carpet bombing, and tanks, it's fairly likely in my opinion no matter how well regulated a local militia may be, it is impossible to theoretically "win" against a first world government without international intervention.

Even if that's the truth, it doesn't mean that we should get rid of the 2nd amendment and all individuals turn over their guns. There are plenty of other reasons to carry a gun other than national revolution: leisure, hunting, self-protection, etc.