Should weapons grade plutonium be legal?

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Should weapons grade plutonium be legal?
Jeffanori-Gomi
4/5/07 8:53:29PM
Just throwin it out there. Since guns are legal, should citizens be allowed to have access to weapons grade plutonium? Since handguns Automatic rifles etc are legal and serve a purpose in our society (I dont know what that purpose is) why not a little nuke for home security?

your thoughts......
roadking95th
4/6/07 1:15:45AM
Once upon a time, there were these really smart guys who wrote this thing called a Constitution...look it up and while you are at it look up the Federalist Papers.
Ydoc
4/6/07 1:18:38AM
That seems like a lame attempt at a loaded question.
Svartorm
4/6/07 5:57:38AM

Posted by Jeffanori-Gomi

Since handguns Automatic rifles etc are legal and serve a purpose in our society (I dont know what that purpose is) why not a little nuke for home security?

your thoughts......



I'd say no because theres no way to deploy a weapon made from that material in a self-defense situation or in a militia situation. I'm all over private ownership of artillary though.
madmarck
4/6/07 8:52:32AM

Posted by Svartorm


I'd say no because theres no way to deploy a weapon made from that material in a self-defense situation or in a militia situation. I'm all over private ownership of artillary though.



You want people to own Howitzers and Mortars?
mkiv9secsupra
4/6/07 11:22:05AM
citizens arent allowed to have automatic rifles....just military, police, etc.... first off what woul you do with the plutonium?! second where would you get the money for it?...
fedorwins1
4/6/07 11:41:59AM
no
pv3Hpv3p
4/6/07 12:34:10PM
I heard this was Fedor's favorite mid-afternoon snack... So I will say yes
Rush
4/6/07 1:22:22PM
Since working with radioactivity is a common thing for me, I would say that given the dangers of handling radioactive plutonium (weapon's grade or not) it should not be allowed.

In fact, I don't get the concept of nukes (these days) in general.
Mastodon2
4/6/07 3:47:35PM
Nukes are insurance, they are a deterrent, not a realistic weapon.

If one country disarmed, they would become a target for those who had nukes to bully. If everyone disarmed at once maybe we could be nuke free, but it just wont ever happen.
Rush
4/6/07 3:56:25PM

Posted by Mastodon2

Nukes are insurance, they are a deterrent, not a realistic weapon.

If one country disarmed, they would become a target for those who had nukes to bully. If everyone disarmed at once maybe we could be nuke free, but it just wont ever happen.




That's why I don't get the concept. If they aren't a realistic weapon, then how are they a deterrent?

I just don't see the logic in 2-way mass genocide (and large scale destruction) as a means of protection/leverage.
pv3Hpv3p
4/6/07 4:20:55PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by Mastodon2

Nukes are insurance, they are a deterrent, not a realistic weapon.

If one country disarmed, they would become a target for those who had nukes to bully. If everyone disarmed at once maybe we could be nuke free, but it just wont ever happen.




That's why I don't get the concept. If they aren't a realistic weapon, then how are they a deterrent?

I just don't see the logic in 2-way mass genocide (and large scale destruction) as a means of protection/leverage.



The problem with it is the complete lack of logic... It's like a pandora's box type thing... Once it's opened it won't go away...

I guess the deterent comes from knowing that no matter what you'll probably be dead... Along with millions of other people, but the impression I get is the folks in position to make decisions such as using nuclear weapons seem to cherish their own lives much more than anything else...
Svartorm
4/7/07 12:12:16AM

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

citizens arent allowed to have automatic rifles....just military, police, etc....



You can own them with a Class III licence in the US.
Svartorm
4/7/07 12:18:18AM

Posted by madmarck


Posted by Svartorm


I'd say no because theres no way to deploy a weapon made from that material in a self-defense situation or in a militia situation. I'm all over private ownership of artillary though.



You want people to own Howitzers and Mortars?



Yup. You can own certain field pieces from the civil war, but I think thats pretty well the extent of it. Howitzers are legal in Switzerland and Israel as well.
Jeffanori-Gomi
4/7/07 3:48:11AM
is it possible to legally own hand grenades? By the way this thread is meant to spark light conversation, please don't flame me too bad I personally don't think anyone but the higher govt forces should have access to that kind of stuff, and Im an anti-gun kinda guy. Thats not to say that the majority of gun owners are responsible and safe with their firearms and only a few bad apples give the group a bad name.

But the same logical process can be applied to such issues as pot legalization and a handful of other heated topics.

just here to stir up the hornets nest
Svartorm
4/7/07 4:14:38AM
I'm not sure on hand grenades. I know several people that own them, but I doubt they're legal. That one I can give or take as far as legal ownership, as they don't serve a self-defense function, but are easy to make if needed for a militia function.

I'm extremely pro-firearm rights obviously.
madmarck
4/7/07 10:41:52AM

Posted by Svartorm

I'm not sure on hand grenades. I know several people that own them, but I doubt they're legal. That one I can give or take as far as legal ownership, as they don't serve a self-defense function, but are easy to make if needed for a militia function.

I'm extremely pro-firearm rights obviously.



Grenades kinda have a big blast radius. Keeping them in the house for self defence might not be so smart. Espically if you have thin walls.
Mastodon2
4/7/07 10:49:12AM
Thin Walls or not, setting off a Hand Grenade in your own would just wreck the place.

Relatively speaking though, Grenades have a very small blast radius.
deadcore
4/7/07 12:42:14PM
grenades are illegal in the states
madmarck
4/7/07 4:43:58PM

Posted by Mastodon2

Thin Walls or not, setting off a Hand Grenade in your own would just wreck the place.

Relatively speaking though, Grenades have a very small blast radius.


What kind of pussy shit grenades have you thrown?
Shrapnel can hit from 50 feet.
Mastodon2
4/7/07 6:57:22PM
At 50 feet, the dispersion of the shrapnel is very Sporadic, and a hit alone is unlikely, and a fatal hit much more so. Outside of the 30 yard ring Hand Grenades rapidly lose their effectiveness.

Fact is, anything with a sizeable kill radius, can't be thrown by a man.
roadking95th
4/8/07 4:17:00AM
Nuclear arms work several ways. To be an effective weapon, only four criteria can apply. One: the enemy doesn't have them. Two: The use of strategic arms for specific apllication, like underground bunkers. Three: you have nothing to lose, see Iran if they get one. Four: the way Reagan truly used them. He knew USSR, with their communist syrtem, could not keep pace with the USA and their Capitalistic Economy. He simply used the arms race to bankrupt the poor bastards. All the talk might have been about mutually assured destruction, which by the way was part of the communist plan to take over America from with in, it was step 1, no really look it up, but the true plan was to bankrupt them.
Svartorm
4/10/07 3:55:16AM

Posted by Mastodon2

At 50 feet, the dispersion of the shrapnel is very Sporadic, and a hit alone is unlikely, and a fatal hit much more so. Outside of the 30 yard ring Hand Grenades rapidly lose their effectiveness.

Fact is, anything with a sizeable kill radius, can't be thrown by a man.



That applies more to old school fragmentation grenades, like the Pineapple Grenades. The technology has "improved" to make them generally lethal well outside of 30 yards, but I'm pretty sure I heard they're scaling them back because unless you throw from behind cover, you're likely to catch some of the blast yourself.

Fun story: We have a grenade casing at my house, and my brother literally made a friend of his shit his pants by throwing it into his lap and jumping behind a couch.
MethodMan
4/20/07 8:27:42AM
I say it should be legal just think of all the back to the future cars we could have

Svartorm
4/20/07 10:14:44PM
HAHAHA! Back to the future....of 1986! Old movies crack me up when they say "We're heading into the future! The year is 2001, and robots have taken over the world...."
MethodMan
4/27/07 5:17:49AM
Doc you have to send me back

Back where ?

Back to the Future.

Related Topics