Where do we draw the line?

[carolina guy]

I will leave it to WalkingWolf, Citizen, and Citizen's invocation of Rothbard to debate the point further if they wish. Citizen and Grapeshot have discussed well the clear difference between powerful weapons like cannons that can be targeted only at aggressors, and WMDs that cannot be targeted. No benefit to me rehashing it again. Come up to the speed on the rest of the thread and the arguments put forth by those with whom there are not personality issues.

I will allow others to speak for themselves. To debunk your argument let's take two cases:

1) a private person living I western Nebraska having a mustard gas bomb
2) a person in Manhattan having a cannon

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Still picking nits I see.



Materially correct: Nobody golfs on the moon.

Technically correct: Actually, Alan Shepard took a golf club with him on Apollo 14 and hit a few balls.

You are clearly well enough read and intelligent enough to know these things. And so you are simply attempting to drag out a personality disagreement while trying to make it look otherwise. Quit being petty.

Charles

It is not technically correct that somebody golfs on the moon because Alan Shepard took a golf club with him and hit a few balls. "Golfs on the moon" may not necessarily mean literally currently, but it does imply some degree of frequency recency - criteria that is clearly not met. It would be plainly false to say that people golf on the moon, and it would be plainly false to say that nobody has ever golfed on the moon. There is not materially/technically difference here. It isn't nit picking, it's just not saying things that are false.

To put it simply, I don't believe there is any significant difference between a "materially" correct and "technically" correct as you have implied.

(Maybe if you spent more time refining a few sentences rather than dumping huge volumes of words you'd have less quality issues with your statements.)

 

[stealthyeliminator]

1: reducto ad absubdum to compare the risk of WMDs in a garage to the risks of a backyard swimming pool.

Incorrect. Listing two examples of risks does not equate to comparing them, nor attempting to use either as part of a reducto ad absurdum technique.

Then you have a very active imagination. The whole of the US government with multiple safety protocols, interlocks, and controls, and multiple persons required to launch/detonate a nuke has come perilously close to "unintended discharges" of nukes on several documented occasions, and several others well less documented. The Soviets likewise. The whole of the US government with its resources, came dangerous close to allowing some of the nastiest chemicals ever created leak into the atmosphere some 50 miles upwind of my home, before finally mustering the resources to properly and permanently dispose of such chemicals. We have read recently of government labs sending Anthrax samples out by mistake.

Does you imagination of a private individual being qualified and able to store and maintain WMDs safely actually go much beyond "the market will handle that"?

You imply that the government is necessarily more effective at safely handling hazards than private person(s), thus if the government fails private person(s) must be even more likely to fail. I don't think I need to point out to anyone on this forum that often enough the exact opposite is the truth.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

30 posts ago I made the same rational argument against WMDs in private hands that Citizen later quoted from Rothsbard. Take your argument up with Citizen where you can either see how quickly you can agree, or you can disagree without feeling the need to call him a liar.

I believe Citizen and I are capable of deciding for ourselves when and where we engage in conversation. You really needn't concern yourself with the matter.

You again fail to recognize the fact that I have not argued in this thread in favor of private ownership, possession, or use of nuclear weapons. If anything I believe I have made an effort to note where arguments for prohibition may be weak; for all you know, in an effort that we may logically strengthen the arguments and rightly work towards disarmament.

 

[utbagpiper]

To debunk your argument let's take two cases:

1) a private person living I western Nebraska having a mustard gas bomb
2) a person in Manhattan having a cannon

Two swings, two misses (and way too easy)

1) Whether in a rural area or not, a mustard gas bomb cannot be targeted against an aggressor alone. "Know your target and what is beyond." Even if the rural homeowner might, in some bizarre case be able to use mustard gas against attackers without obvious risk to known neighbors, he cannot assure that the wind doesn't shift after deployment, or that some innocent person doesn't come along after he has released the chemicals and before they have dissipated. He cannot target only aggressors.

2) Manhattan is a major port and one can easily conceive of a privately owned cannon being put to use against an invading naval force. Pointed at those sea-faring aggressors by the local militia, the cannon poses no practical risk to the innocent persons not being targeted. A cannon ball fired will go where aimed and within a second conclude its flight.

WMDs cannot be targeted against attackers alone. They are indiscriminate killers and can readily be considered immoral.

Do you disagree with this? Or do you just want what government has? Two wrongs make a right?

Looked at other ways:

1) Lacking proper maintenance, the mustard gas bomb degrades and releases the toxic chemicals entirely without control. We came very close to this at the Tooele Chemical Depot west of Salt Lake City.

2) Lacking proper maintenance, the cannon rusts into a harmless pile of iron oxide.


The benefits of owning a WMD are virtually zero since they can't be used defensively in a moral fashion. The risks of owning them are tremendous and extend far beyond one's personal or family matters. The risks come not merely from improper use, but from storage requirements as well. The risks of improper use are horrific and almost impossible to defend against or mitigate.

The benefits of owning guns (even really big guns) are obvious, the risks are far more manageable and contained with nearly zero community risk of lack of maintenance. The risks of improper or criminal misuse are readily mitigated.

A guy opens fire in a café with a 50 cal or even 20mm machine gun and all it takes is a .22 round placed properly to end the threat.

A guy detonates a WMD in that same café and there is no ending the threat. A city block, or 10, or 100 are eliminated or everyone within them dies. Lethal aftereffects may linger for weeks or months. With biological weapons, infections may not be contained and spread to the whole of humanity.

Just stop it. You guys are making yourselves look foolish trying to argue any basis at all for private ownership of WMDs.

A logical, moral case can be made for government not to own WMDs. Such a case may be countered by practical concerns. But a case against government ownership can be made.

No rational, moral, sensible case can be made for private ownership of WMDs. It is beyond silly. It is sad and disturbing.

Please, let it go and just stop.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Incorrect. Listing two examples of risks does not equate to comparing them, nor attempting to use either as part of a reducto ad absurdum technique.

Really? This is pathetic.

When you list swimming pools next to WMDs you are comparing them. Stop trying to walk it back.

You imply that the government is necessarily more effective at safely handling hazards than private person(s), thus if the government fails private person(s) must be even more likely to fail. I don't think I need to point out to anyone on this forum that often enough the exact opposite is the truth.

Then tell us how you imagine private owners having greater safeguards and doing a better job of preventing NDs of WMDS than has government.

You are very prolific at pointing out the failings of government and very short on providing details of how things work better in its absence. I asked you to put up details. You've ignored that and just waved your hands about citizens sometimes doing a better job than government. Details please or else we are back to vivid imaginations.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I believe Citizen and I are capable of deciding for ourselves when and where we engage in conversation. You really needn't concern yourself with the matter.

My post wasn't addressed to you, and didn't even call you out by name. So you needn't concern yourself when I refer someone to Citizen or anyone else.

My heavens, it appears we basically agree on private ownership of WMDs (at least since your buddy quoted Rothbard), and yet you are looking for argument? What is wrong with you?

You again fail to recognize the fact that I have not argued in this thread in favor of private ownership, possession, or use of nuclear weapons. If anything I believe I have made an effort to note where arguments for prohibition may be weak; for all you know, in an effort that we may logically strengthen the arguments and rightly work towards disarmament.

Good luck with that.

 

[utbagpiper]

It is not technically correct that somebody golfs on the moon because Alan Shepard took a golf club with him and hit a few balls. "Golfs on the moon" may not necessarily mean literally currently, but it does imply some degree of frequency recency - criteria that is clearly not met. It would be plainly false to say that people golf on the moon, and it would be plainly false to say that nobody has ever golfed on the moon. There is not materially/technically difference here. It isn't nit picking, it's just not saying things that are false.

It is being a nit picking jerk. It is making a man an offender for a word. It is proving you are right and someone is wrong. It is being argumentative just for the sake of arguing and being disagreeable with zero benefit.

It is doing all you can to make real communication and understanding difficult rather than attempting to understand and learn.

It is to be pretentious and falsely condescending (falsely because you are not in a superior position nor possession superior knowledge).

To put it simply, I don't believe there is any significant difference between a "materially" correct and "technically" correct as you have implied.

So what is the difference between "significant" and "materially"?

You're just being difficult and refusing to concede any point whatsoever. It is childish on your part.

Believe as you wish. In this case, you are incorrect.

(Maybe if you spent more time refining a few sentences rather than dumping huge volumes of words you'd have less quality issues with your statements.)

Maybe if you improved your reading comprehension and had any interest in actual discussion rather than just trying to prove you are right and I'm wrong. Maybe if you were less insulting and made fewer attempts to provoke something from me that would upset the mods.

 

[carolina guy]

Two swings, two misses (and way too easy)

1) Whether in a rural area or not, a mustard gas bomb cannot be targeted against an aggressor alone. "Know your target and what is beyond." Even if the rural homeowner might, in some bizarre case be able to use mustard gas against attackers without obvious risk to known neighbors, he cannot assure that the wind doesn't shift after deployment, or that some innocent person doesn't come along after he has released the chemicals and before they have dissipated. He cannot target only aggressors.

2) Manhattan is a major port and one can easily conceive of a privately owned cannon being put to use against an invading naval force. Pointed at those sea-faring aggressors by the local militia, the cannon poses no practical risk to the innocent persons not being targeted. A cannon ball fired will go where aimed and within a second conclude its flight.

WMDs cannot be targeted against attackers alone. They are indiscriminate killers and can readily be considered immoral.

Do you disagree with this? Or do you just want what government has? Two wrongs make a right?

Looked at other ways:

1) Lacking proper maintenance, the mustard gas bomb degrades and releases the toxic chemicals entirely without control. We came very close to this at the Tooele Chemical Depot west of Salt Lake City.

2) Lacking proper maintenance, the cannon rusts into a harmless pile of iron oxide.


The benefits of owning a WMD are virtually zero since they can't be used defensively in a moral fashion. The risks of owning them are tremendous and extend far beyond one's personal or family matters. The risks come not merely from improper use, but from storage requirements as well. The risks of improper use are horrific and almost impossible to defend against or mitigate.

The benefits of owning guns (even really big guns) are obvious, the risks are far more manageable and contained with nearly zero community risk of lack of maintenance. The risks of improper or criminal misuse are readily mitigated.

A guy opens fire in a café with a 50 cal or even 20mm machine gun and all it takes is a .22 round placed properly to end the threat.

A guy detonates a WMD in that same café and there is no ending the threat. A city block, or 10, or 100 are eliminated or everyone within them dies. Lethal aftereffects may linger for weeks or months. With biological weapons, infections may not be contained and spread to the whole of humanity.

Just stop it. You guys are making yourselves look foolish trying to argue any basis at all for private ownership of WMDs.

A logical, moral case can be made for government not to own WMDs. Such a case may be countered by practical concerns. But a case against government ownership can be made.

No rational, moral, sensible case can be made for private ownership of WMDs. It is beyond silly. It is sad and disturbing.

Please, let it go and just stop.

Charles

First, let me apologize for the brief reply...was using my phone and i cannot really type using that.

Allow me to quote Socrates "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."

Please tell me exactly what you mean by WMD. By conventional and legal definition, WMDs can include things from a sawed-off shotgun, a hand grenade, a pipe bomb, a chemical weapon, a nuke, etc. Furthermore, they can come in varying sizes, powers, ranges, methods of deployment, duration of effect, etc. WMD is simply too broad of a term to be accurately discussed.

Case in point, a hand grenade used on a ranch in western Nebraska against an interloper would quite possibly be a very effective and contained response, whereas a grenade used in Manhattan during lunch might not. Furthermore, a suit case nuke might only kill a single person used on the same ranch.

Also, please make your arguments to me, not rely on my reading all the posts of another person to gain the meaning of your statements in this thread.

"Know your target and what is beyond."

A 50 caliber machine gun would be a reasonable gun to have and bear, correct? However, to use it in my neighborhood could easily make it into a WMD by firing it in most any direction. The point being that ANY weapon can be misused and abused, so when do you restrict the RIGHT to have it? The RIGHT exists regardless of the POTENTIAL misuse. Once the misuse occurs, the RIGHT is no longer applicable.

2) Manhattan is a major port and one can easily conceive of a privately owned cannon being put to use against an invading naval force. Pointed at those sea-faring aggressors by the local militia, the cannon poses no practical risk to the innocent persons not being targeted. A cannon ball fired will go where aimed and within a second conclude its flight.

Useful example if the British fleet or Spanish Armada are threatening, but I think that specific example is hardly applicable now that we have progressed past sailing ships.

WMDs cannot be targeted against attackers alone. They are indiscriminate killers and can readily be considered immoral.

Incorrect and simplistic. You have a small force of enemies approaching a stranded force on a hill top, an aircraft approaches and drops some napalm on the approaching forces. WMD applied against attackers.

2) Lacking proper maintenance, the cannon rusts into a harmless pile of iron oxide.

How about the powder stores for the cannon? How about the rounds for said cannon, that may include mustard gas? I think you need to look at it as a weapon system in this case. (*shrug*)

The benefits of owning a WMD are virtually zero since they can't be used defensively in a moral fashion. The risks of owning them are tremendous and extend far beyond one's personal or family matters. The risks come not merely from improper use, but from storage requirements as well. The risks of improper use are horrific and almost impossible to defend against or mitigate.

The benefits of owning guns (even really big guns) are obvious, the risks are far more manageable and contained with nearly zero community risk of lack of maintenance. The risks of improper or criminal misuse are readily mitigated.

Again, you make VERY general, sweeping statements without real definition of your terms, so the benefits of continuing to discuss are marginal at best. This does appear to be your MO, but perhaps it isn't. I will be happy to stop when you make a well defined argument that cannot be refuted. The problem is that you are deciding that you are qualified to place limits on an absolute right, and I don't think you are so qualified. Again, (*shrug*)

 

[carolina guy]

That may be true. Or maybe, just maybe, simple examples of one man defending against another don't quite work when speaking of nations. Certainly, we can believe that even the most necessary of war will require certain immoral actions. Yet require them it does. No soldier in war can be expected to individually determine which soldiers from the other side actually pose an imminent, immediate risk to him. Those in the enemy's uniform are to be eliminated, period.

Or, let's look at this another way. For sake of argument, let's say you're right and it IS immoral and a violation of natural rights for nation states to build, maintain, threaten, and use WMDs.

Great. So do 2 wrongs or 200 million wrongs make a right?

If we accept that it is immoral for the USA to maintain Nukes, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, or some other WMD, will that immoral conduct be lessoned if 2 dozen private wing nuts emulate the immoral conduct by keeping WMDs of their own?

I, Citizen, and Citizen's Rothbard's quote have made clear that WMDs cannot morally be used against an assailant because WMDs cannot be targeted against the assailant(s) solely, but will necessarily infringe the rights of others. No moral case can be made for private ownership of WMDs. That leaves only a case of "if the government gets to do it, so do I" which is a "2 wrongs make a right" kind of argument which is not going to be acceptable to any moral man, I trust.

Hence, we're right back to no moral argument supporting private ownership of WMDs.

If you'd like to argue that the government should eliminate nuclear and other WMDs from its inventory, you have a fairly good moral and principled argument to make.

Charles

No, It is true, regardless of the number of people involved. Furthermore, I never said that it was immoral for nations to have WMDs...so the rest is irrelevant. Also, WMDs can be targeted...if you disagree, prove it for ALL cases, else drop the absolute.

 

[carolina guy]

You do know that NONE of Socrates' writing survived and that we know of him only through third parties like his student Plato, and Xenophon and Aristophanes, don't you?

You can find anything you want on teh interwebz cept the truth, like Alice's Restaurant.

And your point is what? Are you saying that Socrates said nothing to that effect? I suppose you will use the same logic with Christians about the NT?:lol: The point remains...define the terms or the discussion is pointless and will NOT result in meaningful communications and understanding.

 

[utbagpiper]

No, It is true, regardless of the number of people involved.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But something about absolutes comes to mind for some reason.

I enjoy logical discussion. Less interested in repeated, emphatic assertions.

Furthermore, I never said that it was immoral for nations to have WMDs...so the rest is irrelevant.

So what, exactly is your position on the morality of nation states possessing WMDs?

Also, WMDs can be targeted...if you disagree, prove it for ALL cases, else drop the absolute.

No, the common examples have been provided repeatedly in this forum by several different posters. You go ahead and provide sufficient counter-examples to make a practical case. I'm frankly not interested in some high school debate club getting nit picky over rare corner cases.

Show me the cases where you believe WMDs can be practically targeted such as to be useful for personal defense and if they amount to something more than a one in a billion type of event I may have to reconsider my view on personal ownership of WMDs. I highly doubt that even if I could prove that there was no possible way for anyone to ever use WMDs in a morally targeted way that you'd accept it nor change your position. So no thanks on the exercise in futility.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp

Anyway, there is a call in Yemen that may be gaining momentum that the state outlaw this barbaric societal norm.

The line is drawn anew...sometimes...for good or bad.

Yet I think that isn't the natural state but has too be learned and indocturnated.

 

[carolina guy]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But something about absolutes comes to mind for some reason.

I enjoy logical discussion. Less interested in repeated, emphatic assertions.



So what, exactly is your position on the morality of nation states possessing WMDs?



No, the common examples have been provided repeatedly in this forum by several different posters. You go ahead and provide sufficient counter-examples to make a practical case. I'm frankly not interested in some high school debate club getting nit picky over rare corner cases.

Show me the cases where you believe WMDs can be practically targeted such as to be useful for personal defense and if they amount to something more than a one in a billion type of event I may have to reconsider my view on personal ownership of WMDs. I highly doubt that even if I could prove that there was no possible way for anyone to ever use WMDs in a morally targeted way that you'd accept it nor change your position. So no thanks on the exercise in futility.

Charles

Speaking of repeated assertions...what is your definition of WMDs? Please be precise. I am asking YOU for YOUR definition, not other people for theirs. if you have none, or are unwilling to do so, please say so and we will be done with the discussion for lack of common ground.

My feelings about the morality of governments having WMDs (of whatever definition) is largely irrelevant considering that I feel that governments themselves are immoral. Nice deflection from the question that you do not appear willing to answer, however. ;-)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

LOl...

I never said nobody decides what is wrong.

Purposefully misstating and then creating an argument to counter that misstatement is called lying.

 

[utbagpiper]

Allow me to quote Socrates "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."

Please tell me exactly what you mean by WMD. By conventional and legal definition, WMDs can include things from a sawed-off shotgun, a hand grenade, a pipe bomb, a chemical weapon, a nuke, etc. Furthermore, they can come in varying sizes, powers, ranges, methods of deployment, duration of effect, etc. WMD is simply too broad of a term to be accurately discussed.

Actually, sawed off shotguns and convention explosives are legally considered "destructive devices" or something similar. Several of us in this thread have made clear that WMDs include nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. Citizen provided a quote that defined them as indiscriminate mass killing machines, or something similar.

I'm really not interested in getting overly pedantic as I think it derails real discussion.

Case in point, a hand grenade used on a ranch in western Nebraska against an interloper would quite possibly be a very effective and contained response, whereas a grenade used in Manhattan during lunch might not. Furthermore, a suit case nuke might only kill a single person used on the same ranch.

A nuke only kills a single person if the only person around is the one detonating it. If remotely detonated with only a single person around, it is pretty hard to argue that person presented a credible threat. Not to mention the fallout that can easily carry a long distance downwind.

Sorry, you're struggling to find extreme examples to justify routine public policy. That just doesn't fly with me. I won't accept it. No offense, but we might as well get that definition out there right away.

Also, please make your arguments to me, not rely on my reading all the posts of another person to gain the meaning of your statements in this thread.

No, this is a thread. And if you're going to jump in midstream and respond to my posts which were a response to other posts, you bear the responsibility of coming up to speed on the context.

A 50 caliber machine gun would be a reasonable gun to have and bear, correct? However, to use it in my neighborhood could easily make it into a WMD by firing it in most any direction. The point being that ANY weapon can be misused and abused, so when do you restrict the RIGHT to have it? The RIGHT exists regardless of the POTENTIAL misuse. Once the misuse occurs, the RIGHT is no longer applicable.

A 50 cal can be used in many cases without creating any material risk to innocent persons. A WMD can never (or practically never if one is insisting on being pedantic) used without creating risk to innocent persons. Even detonated on a remote and deserted island, a nuke releases radioactive material that can circle the globe endangering the health of many.

Useful example if the British fleet or Spanish Armada are threatening, but I think that specific example is hardly applicable now that we have progressed past sailing ships.

Perhaps. The point is, the cannon poses zero risk just sitting there, and may be used in any number of cases for recreation or defense and not inherently pose a risk to non-targeted individuals. Cannons are aimed. They have a limited force and a very limited time window during which the shell is in flight and posing a risk. All of this is not true for WMDs.

Incorrect and simplistic. You have a small force of enemies approaching a stranded force on a hill top, an aircraft approaches and drops some napalm on the approaching forces. WMD applied against attackers.

Napalm is not a WMD, but is a targeted weapon.

How about the powder stores for the cannon?

The biggest risk from gunpowder is that it gets wet or otherwise degrades and won't ignite. Now, if you're talking about storing 10,000 pounds of powder in your suburban garage or urban storage unit, we may well need to look at routine hazmat regulations. We all keep a few bottles of chlorine bleach around for household use and maybe even emergency water purification. If you are storing 1000 gallons of the stuff, I'm going to expect it is in an appropriate industrial or commercial zone with proper permits and inspections. Telling me that chlorine is your weapon of choice and attempting to invoke the 2A isn't going to alter my view of it. Yes, I'm quite wiling to authorize government to use force to prevent such grave dangers to the community as some wingnut thinking he has a "right" to keep unsafe quantities of highly hazardous chemicals around without legitimate need and proper safeguards.

How about the rounds for said cannon, that may include mustard gas? I think you need to look at it as a weapon system in this case. (*shrug*)

That is a WMD. Firing it from a cannon doesn't change that.

Again, you make VERY general, sweeping statements without real definition of your terms, so the benefits of continuing to discuss are marginal at best. This does appear to be your MO, but perhaps it isn't. I will be happy to stop when you make a well defined argument that cannot be refuted. The problem is that you are deciding that you are qualified to place limits on an absolute right, and I don't think you are so qualified. Again, (*shrug*)

It is probably best to stop now before you tread any further into what reasonable men would consider insults and attacks on character.

Read the thread and see if you can bait anyone else into your ridiculous claims.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Speaking of repeated assertions...what is your definition of WMDs. Please be precise. I am asking YOU for YOUR definition, not other people for theirs. if you have none, or are unwilling to do so, please say so and we will be done with the discussion for lack of common ground.

My feelings about the morality of governments having WMDs (of whatever definition) is largely irrelevant considering that I feel that governments themselves are immoral.

No. We are done. Enjoy whatever other argument you can get. There is no need to continue a debate with anyone who favors anarchy and the communism it inextricably brings, over properly functioning government.

 

[carolina guy]

No. We are done. Enjoy whatever other argument you can get. There is no need to continue a debate with anyone who favors anarchy and the communism it inextricably brings, over properly functioning government.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”
WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(4)The term “destructive device” means—(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—(i)bomb,

(ii)grenade,

(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,

(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,

(v)mine, or

(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;


(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and

(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

I would say that we are mostly done because you do not wish to support your argument with ANYTHING approaching fact, just your opinion. So, when you wish to define your terms, we have the basis for a productive discussion. For now, you are wrong and have been wrong all along. good night.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I am pretty sure everybody knows the context since its all in this thread.

 

[utbagpiper]

I would say that we are mostly done because you do not wish to support your argument with ANYTHING approaching fact, just your opinion. So, when you wish to define your terms, we have the basis for a productive discussion. For now, you are wrong and have been wrong all along. good night.

That was clearly your intent all along. So just as well we got to the punch line quickly.

Enjoy fantasizing about owning nukes and having no government.