Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[Skull Pilot]

gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......

I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.

Where does it say in the First computers are a right?

 

[oldsoul]

Great. One down. Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.

View attachment 85287
Good luck repealing that one...

Not necessary. Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.

And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias. No "self defense" right was ever read into it. No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns. Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court. Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)

Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.

And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.

 

[Al Azar]

Great. One down. Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.

View attachment 85287
Good luck repealing that one...

Not necessary. Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.

So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...

The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society. Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?

Things change as judicial wisdom changes. Adapt, or die.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....

Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons... Is there no end?

Why not? People who aren't criminals will not commit crimes with them

And FYI anyone who can pay for an armored car can get one. No special permit needed

 

[Al Azar]

Back on that old straw man, eh? Great soundbite, no substance.

Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
Strawman my ass.
There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.

Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?

"Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?


Guess the British weren't much smarter.

I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.

There's really no point. It simply does not work.

Which is exactly why no one, anywhere, attempts it. It's an empty soundbite that has no place in a discussion of gun control.

Unless you're trying to defend an indefensible position.

So, tell the class what a national registry will do to stop gun crimes.
There must be some evidence that registries work right?

Why would you need a national registry duplicating state registries?

 

[Skull Pilot]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported

 

[Skull Pilot]

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.

Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.

??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.

Machine guns are regulated. Assault style weaponry is not. There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.

There only needs to be one difference.

and there is

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents? Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions? And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway? Low.

More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?

No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy

 

[GaryDog]

Great. One down. Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.

View attachment 85287
Good luck repealing that one...

Not necessary. Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.

And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias. No "self defense" right was ever read into it. No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns. Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court. Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)

Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.

And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.

There were words spoken before the ellipses there you know.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

No.

Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process. Gun ownership is not.

gun owning is the only thing that guarantees the voting process....ask any unarmed society when the government decides to ignore the results of an election....

 

[alang1216]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported

OK then, can you supply another place/time when everyone was allowed to own and carry weapons that was peaceful?

 

[Al Azar]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents? Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions? And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway? Low.

More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?

No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy

And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.

Oh, and no infringement of rights.

 

[2aguy]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

Every single day. Europe gave up their guns after World War 2.....20 years later 12 million of them were murdered in gas chambers.

Mexicans allowed their government to have the guns....now the police and military working for the drug cartels are murdering unarmed Mexicans by the 10s of thousands every year...right now...right across our border.....

Unarmed people cannot stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide......

I admire your ideological purity. So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?

Yep. the standard small arms of the infantry and police.......

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.......they allowed cannon on ships in private hands....

But for our purposes.....whatever the police have, and whatever small arms the infantry in the U.S. have...that is the bottom of what we get...we can then debate the rest.....

"Allowed" indicates it is not a right. I'd allow anything if proper permission is obtained.

So you're OK with automatic weapons with grenade launchers?

You can get those now.

 

[2aguy]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

The ones getting slaughtered in Afghanistan don't have guns.......and you don't have enough good guys with guns to protect the weak......and enforce peace.......

 

[Al Azar]

Great. One down. Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.

View attachment 85287
Good luck repealing that one...

Not necessary. Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.

And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias. No "self defense" right was ever read into it. No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns. Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court. Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)

Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.

And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.

There were words spoken before the ellipses there you know.

Only that inconvenient qualifying clause.

 

[2aguy]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported

OK then, can you supply another place/time when everyone was allowed to own and carry weapons that was peaceful?

The United States.......Sweden.....

 

[2aguy]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents? Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions? And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway? Low.

More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?

No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy

And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.

Oh, and no infringement of rights.

and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........

Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?

and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........

 

[Al Azar]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

No.

Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process. Gun ownership is not.

gun owning is the only thing that guarantees the voting process....ask any unarmed society when the government decides to ignore the results of an election....

Your comments are interesting, but have nothing to do with the discussion, which is gun control.

 

[2aguy]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

How the hell do you think we won our independence?

The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.

Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...

What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?

To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces. That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.

Yep......