View Poll Results: Which should be legal for average citizens to own and use?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • VX

    10 16.67%
  • Aersol Ebola

    9 15.00%
  • Nuclear Weapons

    6 10.00%
  • Jet Fighters with full munitions

    20 33.33%
  • Claymores and Mines

    29 48.33%
  • Anti-Armor Missiles

    27 45.00%
  • Machine Guns

    40 66.67%
  • Handguns

    57 95.00%
  • Automatic Rifles

    49 81.67%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #141
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,796

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    You are 180 degrees wrong on this and this is the crux of the whole matter.

    Yelling fire might be illegal in the theater, but in order to prevent that occuring, the state does not cut your tongue and vocal chords out and take them away from you, does it ?
    No. Now please point out where I mentioned taking away anything? Or did I mention reasonable over site or licensing.


    No Lives Matter

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Question Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Or did I mention reasonable over site or licensing.
    Anyone oversee or license your vocal chords ?

  3. #143
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,796

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    As I said:
    They are subjective terms that allow you to apply your argument where you want to, rather than in a consistient manner
    I note that you dont even bother to deny that...
    Why would I deny it? I think having large destructive weapons being overseen or licensed is a common sense issue.

    They are already licensed and as I said it is not considered unconstitutional. So your argument as far as I am concerned is irrelevant in a real world scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If thats what it tells you, then "common sense" and "reasonable" are traits you do not possess.
    I don't know lets look closer...

    I live next store to a person who just bought a claymore and knows little to nothing about it.

    Yea no common sense here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If the only way your argument works is when you apply it selectively across similar circumstances, based on when you think it makes sense, then your argument, at best, has HUGE holes in it.
    A reporter doing a news report is not even close to a person with a rocket launcher. Your argument boiled down is nothing but unrealistic philosophical mental masturbation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This describes your technology argument -- that some items of technology are covered by the constitution and some arent, even though NONE of them are anything that the founders could have ever dreamed of.
    Realistically this is absolutely correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And, to further address the unsoundness of your argument, lets interject a little 'common sense' -- which would Thomas jefferson find more familiar - an M16 or a computer hooked to the internet?
    Irrelivant as he is dead and we have no idea what his reaction would be. We do know weapons we have today pose a serius threat that weapons then did not.

    That is logic and common sense. Don't confuse it for hypothetical nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I see you didnt bother to answer my question.
    You base your argument on requiring licenses for (whatever weapon) on the threat they pose to society.
    Given that those that report the news, etc, pose at least that level of threat, as evidenced by the banning of certain actions they might take, what argument is there that they too should not also require a license?
    What part about over site are you not understanding? It does not have to be a license, it could be requiring a class or something else.

    Fact is I have answered this question a few times and you don't like my answer as you have done your best to ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I havent proven anything -for- you -- I have, however, proven you to be subjective and inconsistent.
    Go back and read it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, it doesnt -- its based on the legal concept that your rights extend so far as they do not harm anyone else. That's not "common sense", that s a basic tenet of what rights are.
    If this is the way all rights work, why can't people own nuclear weapons? Why do we have a nuclear regulatory commission. Why do we have levels of weapons licenses?

    Sorry the SCOTUS has not ruled it illegal or unconstitutional. Could it be they recognize the hazard they represent to the common good? Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    REALLY.
    Tell me then:
    What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?
    The "right to bear arms" does not cover "all weapons." If this were the case I could own a fully automatic weapon without a federal license.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 06-10-09 at 08:02 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  4. #144
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,796

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Anyone oversee or license your vocal chords ?
    You have got to be kidding.

    Do you honestly think licensing someones vocal cords is the equivalent of licensing a mine?
    Last edited by Black Dog; 06-10-09 at 08:00 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  5. #145
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanitas View Post
    Am I the only person who thinks the people who voted for the first three are completely insane?

    I guess you all should be proud of yourselves, adherent to the constitution and all...
    No, especially since the number of votes on those is low and several of them are joke votes. But is at least one person here who actually thinks private ownership of those three should be legal.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You have got to be kidding.

    Do you honestly think licensing someones vocal cords is the equivalent of licensing a mine?
    Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.

    You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,710

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Lawd...i really don't want to do this, I just know its going to be the same old stuff for the fifteenth time...sigh.

    Okay, what obvious reason? Other than, its the type of firearm most commonly used for self-defense? Other than, its the most convenient firearm for a law abiding citizen to carry for self-defense?

    OH, I almost forgot, I'm leaving on vacation in the morning! Woo-hoo! I'll have to leave you gents to carry on without me for a few days, try not to be too ecstatic about it.


    Laters.
    Have a great vacation...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  8. #148
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,710

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Did you get the question backwards by any chance?
    Nope...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  9. #149
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,796

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.
    Reality says different, and so does the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.
    Please point out where I am asking the government to forcibly deprive anyone of anything? Did you bother to read my argument at all?

    Since when did licensing or over site to make sure a person is competent to own a very destructive device become depriving someone of something?
    Last edited by Black Dog; 06-10-09 at 09:10 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  10. #150
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,710

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.

    You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.
    Rights are nothing more than man made laws about what they think should be rather than what is... The Constitution is no more valid than what I think, it is only right and I am only wrong by the governments threat of force in backing the Constitution were I to not obey it...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •