Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[ChriswUfGator]

And regarding your question about whether the M.I.T. students were charged, they had been requested to perform that task by a congressional committee, and were therefore acting under congressional authority. Congress itself isn't subject to this restriction, and accordingly their actions were legal. If they'd just gotten together to do it for fun, that would have been another story.

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, reread my reply #154.  Clearly your harping on such a silly question can stop now?  

Chris, reread 2132 a), it is posted at the top of this page.  The statute is referring to "utilization or production facilities".  This is a regulatory statute.  

Kosher pickle?  What the heck are you talking about?

Guys, I know that you are both desperate to be right all of the time but gee whiz!, how long do you want to drag this out?

Again Chris, what type of firearm do you carry?  If you don't wish to reveal the information I understand, just say so.

[NotNow]

?Evasion?  You can't seem to read english and I'm evading?  I said " Of course such weapons should be tightly controlled by the governments which created them. "  Is that really a difficult answer for you? 

And you do realize now that the nuclear weapon argument in reference to the second amendment is a moot argument, don't you? 

Your continued focus on this (meaningless) point would be an obvious diversion of the second discussion, except you and Chris seem to not want to accept the facts on the N weapons questions.

[NotNow]

Chris,

The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:

§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________

Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.

[NotNow]

So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens?  Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say.  I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them.  (How many times have I said that?)  Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon?  Not to mention testing and storage.  These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life.  They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals. 

I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris,

The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:

§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________

Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.

NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.

[NotNow]

So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens?  Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say.  I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them.  (How many times have I said that?)  Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon?  Not to mention testing and storage.  These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life.  They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals. 

I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?

just wanting to have perfect understanding of your point of view.  You seem to be hedging.  Reading your statement, one could come to the conclusion that if a private citizen independently created a nuclear weapong that wasnt created by a government, then you might not have a problem with them posessing, selling, transporting or otherwise utilizing them.

You seem to be qualifying your support of the laws by reducing them to a question of ownership and liability.

So let me try asking the question again.

Do you support the laws making it illegal for regular citizens to own or use nuclear weapons?

I'll state it again.  It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon.  Your question is faulty in its premise.  I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon.  I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own.  I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.

[NotNow]

Chris,

The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:

§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________

Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.

NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.

Your kidding me, right?  Not trained in statutory interpretation?  My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it.  What are you...two or three hours out of law school?  Give me a break.  You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted.  Read the entire subchapter.  You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience.  

On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry?  Do you have a CCL?  Do you own a handgun?

[NotNow]

[]I'll state it again.  It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon.  Your question is faulty in its premise.  I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon.  I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own.  I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.[/]

Do you support any laws making private nuclear weapons of any kind illegal for private citizens?

Yes or no?

Do you understand now that the nuclear weapon argument is moot when discussing the second amendment? 

Yes or no?

[ChriswUfGator]

So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens?  Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say.  I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them.  (How many times have I said that?)  Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon?  Not to mention testing and storage.  These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life.  They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals.  

I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?

just wanting to have perfect understanding of your point of view.  You seem to be hedging.  Reading your statement, one could come to the conclusion that if a private citizen independently created a nuclear weapong that wasnt created by a government, then you might not have a problem with them posessing, selling, transporting or otherwise utilizing them.

You seem to be qualifying your support of the laws by reducing them to a question of ownership and liability.

So let me try asking the question again.

Do you support the laws making it illegal for regular citizens to own or use nuclear weapons?

I'll state it again.  It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon.  Your question is faulty in its premise.  I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon.  I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own.  I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.

The same M.I.T group who at congressional request built a working bomb out of a surplus gun barrel and everyday items from a hardware store ran the calculations, and it would a little under $6mm to have a functional homebuilt weapon, including the estimated price of the U235 based on the value of different black market seizures in the past several years. There is indeed a black market in this stuff, the only problem for your politics is that it had nothing at all to do with Saddam Hussein, lol. I hate to keep referencing the same movie, but Countdown to Zero totally debunked that line of thinking, and they interviewed everyone from Gorbachev to Robert McNamara, who all agree it's not out of the realm of private people to obtain at all. $6mm is what it would take.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris,

The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:

§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________

Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.

NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.

Your kidding me, right?  Not trained in statutory interpretation?  My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it.  What are you...two or three hours out of law school?  Give me a break.  You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted.  Read the entire subchapter.  You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience. 

On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry?  Do you have a CCL?  Do you own a handgun?

NotNow, come on, you aren't this dumb, you know as well as I do those subsections were the exceptions about what IS legal if it has proper licensure. Everything BUT those exceptions is illegal, up to and including mere possession, as the statute clearly states. Or are you going to redefine "possession" as well?

Why don't you quit dragging your feet to avoid the inexorable slide towards the unavoidable slippery slope that your argument can't avoid and just acknowledge that you clearly support limitations on the private ownership of military-grade weapons, for obvious reasons?

And FWIW, I know where you're going with your questions about what firearms I own, and I'll cut to the chase, I don't want to lose my right to own or carry. But I don't own any assault weapons, and every time one of these things happens like Arizona or Columbine, you have to admit it generally involves them. I have mixed feelings about all this, and don't support a firearms ban. But I also find the logic behind the second amendment strict constructionists' arguments kind of funny, because if the original intent and plain meaning are all that matters, then we'd logically be entitled to own anything the government owns, since ensuring the ability for resistance against our own government should it become tyrannical was after all the entire point in the first place. Following that logic, I want my personal nuclear bomb and my own battleship, maybe a couple missiles too. Lol!

[NotNow]

Try humoring me.  Answer my questions.  Yours is based on a false premise.  The government has already made the essential portions of such a weapon illegal ( I would be interested, Chris, in seeing the statute that allows Congress to commission the building of a viable nuclear weapon).  And, contrary to what the movie told you, it is actually more difficult than was presented to build a viable weapon.  You might want to check on a few of your facts with someone who does not have a political point to make or a movie to sell.  You also might want to check on the ACTUAL records of smuggling captures and how much material has been seized.

I see that you are throwing out your extensive legal experience as well.  Are you also claiming that Subchapter IX 2131 "utilization or production facilities" does not refer to facilities?  I can assure both of you that you are way off base on this one.  

[ChriswUfGator]

Well NotNow, on one hand I've got Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert McNamara, Valerie Plame, and a host of policemen from former soviet bloc countries and intelligence officers, plus jailhouse interviews with a couple actual uranium smugglers, all telling me on that documentary how easy it is to get ahold of, and on the other hand I've got you telling me how they're apparently all wrong. Who would you believe?

And about the statute, you're wrong, I've explained it three times already. Those subsections are the types of facilities which are legal, if properly licensed. Those aren't general definitions. Every other act of possessing, transporting, using, etc., the material outside of one of the enumerated licensed uses in those subsections, which would include any private individual owning enriched uranium, is plainly illegal under that statute. I hope you don't have a hernia straining so hard to stretch this logic.

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't have anything to sell, Ive just been trying for 10 hours to get a simple answer from you on a simple subject.

Do you believe that these weapons should be illegal for normal citizens to posess?

How hard is that to answer?

So far youve told me how much you think they cost, provided a list of people that you don't think can afford them, argued that they arent really illegal, intimated that government should tightly monitor them (apparently since they created them) and a host of other sidetracks, but you havent answered the important one.

Do you think that it should be a crime for regular people to posess a nuclear warhead for personal use?

Lol he's doing everything possible to avoid this slippery slope, which is inherent to his own argument, it's not even us doing it. Lol, I think he's running out of distractions though.

So NotNow, why not answer the question? Would you have a problem with military-grade weapons, including nuclear bombs, being legal for private people to own? Simple question, really.

[NotNow]

Chris,

The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:

§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________

Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.

NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.

Your kidding me, right?  Not trained in statutory interpretation?  My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it.  What are you...two or three hours out of law school?  Give me a break.  You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted.  Read the entire subchapter.  You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience.  

On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry?  Do you have a CCL?  Do you own a handgun?

NotNow, come on, you aren't this dumb, you know as well as I do those subsections were the exceptions about what IS legal if it has proper licensure. Everything BUT those exceptions is illegal, up to and including mere possession, as the statute clearly states. Or are you going to redefine "possession" as well?

Why don't you quit dragging your feet to avoid the inexorable slide towards the unavoidable slippery slope that your argument can't avoid and just acknowledge that you clearly support limitations on the private ownership of military-grade weapons, for obvious reasons?

And FWIW, I know where you're going with your questions about what firearms I own, and I'll cut to the chase, I don't want to lose my right to own or carry. But I don't own any assault weapons, and every time one of these things happens like Arizona or Columbine, you have to admit it generally involves them. I have mixed feelings about all this, and don't support a firearms ban. But I also find the logic behind the second amendment strict constructionists' arguments kind of funny, because if the original intent and plain meaning are all that matters, then we'd logically be entitled to own anything the government owns, since ensuring the ability for resistance against our own government should it become tyrannical was after all the entire point in the first place. Following that logic, I want my personal nuclear bomb and my own battleship, maybe a couple missiles too. Lol!

Sigh.  You have learned nothing from all of this debate.  Subchapter IX REALLY is about licensing legal atomic energy operations and has nothing to do with weapons.  Call the FBI, the NRC, the DOE, somebody may be able to explain it to you.  I guess I'm just too "dumb".  

It is difficult to argue "military grade" weapons with you guys.  What does that mean?  What do you mean when you say "assault weapon"?  Neither of those terms is defined.  The most recent shooting in AZ was using a semi automatic handgun.  The Columbine shooters used two shotguns, a nine mm semi auto carbine and a nine mm semi auto pistol.  Which of these were "military grade" or "assault weapons"?

I have explained the nuclear weapon thing till I am blue in the face.  Neither of you appear to appreciate what is really involved in building such a weapon.  I confidently take such weapons off the table when we are talking about private citizens.  I know to do this because of my training, education, and experience.  

As for the original intent of the 2nd, yes, one of the intents was to arm the people against tyranny.  The Japanese knew this, and even with all of their advanced weaponry Yamamoto is famously quoted as saying that occupying the mainland US would be impossible because a rifleman would be behind every rock.  He recognized the power of an armed populace, although your and StephenDare! don't appear to understand the vastness of the numbers.  But resisting tyrant governments is not the only intent of the 2nd.  As the vast majority of Americans have stated over and over again.