[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

You know, I was about to say, most machine gun owners are recreational shooters, and most of them only ever shoot their weapons on their private property or at Knob Creek.

Most nuclear powers have them for national security and never use them. In fact, the only country that has used them other than for testing is the US.

So if the threat of the bad use doesn't mean we should outlaw machine guns, because most people use them recreationaly: how are nukes any different?

Personally I dont see a need for anymore restrictions on them. They are already among the most expensive weapons to buy (not including the taxes on them) and usually prohibitively expensive to shoot (there are 8 transferable miniguns in the country, and most people couldnt afford to shoot one for more than 5 or 6 seconds).

All those conditions could be said about Nukes.

My question is not to "anyone who opposes any restrictions on guns", only those who simultaniously do so while wanting to impose restrictions against nations on nukes.

And I still dont see what being progun, or even fanactically progun has anything to do with not wanting other countries to not have nuclear weapons. Though, Ive already stated Im torn on the issue.

If you oppose nuclear regulatoin then you are consistant, and I have no questions / arguments for you.

If you argue that American citizens arming themselves (with basically anything) *should* be a right, but then argue that nations arming themselves (with basically anything) *shoudln't* be a right, my question is "what's the difference?"

[guitarguy90]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So if the threat of the bad use doesn't mean we should outlaw machine guns, because most people use them recreationaly: how are nukes any different?

Yeah, who are we to restrict them from using nukes for recreational purposes? I mean, if plinking is fun with a machine gun, how much more fun would it be with a nuke?

[mulletman]

But think of how big your tin cans would have to be! Man....

[scared2mosh]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So why is it not OK to keep dangerous weapons capable of killing many people (full-auto assault rifles) from individuals within our own country?

because it is in our constitutional rights... besides if everyone owned and carried a gun do you really think that someone who decided to shoot a bunch of people at the mall would get very far?
the answer is no...

but just fine to tell entire other countries that they can't have weapons the likes of which have prevented WWIII for 50 years?

The reason is we would use them to prevent war... (although now I'm not so certain) whereas they would try to take over the world. Ever heard of "Peace through the superiority of arms"?