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 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #161
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Why would I deny it?
    Why woud lyou deny that your position is subjective and inconsistent?
    Seems pretty obvious to me.
    But -- glad we agree that your 'technology' argument is selective, and as such I will consider you to have conceded the point.

    I don't know lets look closer...
    There's no need to look closer -- you already conceded the point, that the 'technology' argument is unsound.

    A reporter doing a news report is not even close to a person with a rocket launcher.
    If a reporter's ability to libel, slander or give away sensitive information isnt a danger to society sufficient to justify their exclusion from the protection of the 1st amendment, why are these things banned?

    Given that a reporter very mush has the ability to cause harm by doing these things, and then, by YOUR argument, should need a license.
    How am I wrong?

    Realistically this is absolutely correct.
    You have already admitted that your argument to this effect is subjective and inconsistent. Move on.

    Irrelivant as he is dead and we have no idea what his reaction would be.
    This, of course, completely undermines your technology argument, based entirely on what you think they could or could not have thought of when they wrote the 2nd. Glad we can put that one to bed. Again.

    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.
    Now you're moving the goalposts.
    But, OK...
    Does requiring a reporter to 'take a class' before the government says he can report the news violate the 1st amendment?
    If so, then how does the same requirement applied to gun owers NOT violate the 2nd?

    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.
    You have done everyghing BUT answer my question.
    You simply want to apply a subjective and inconsistent standard to one right and not others. Your argument has no rational, consistent basis.

    If this is the way all rights work...
    What do you mean "if"?
    If you don't understand that the right to do something ends at the point where it harms someone else, as described by any number ouf court decisions, you really arent capable of adding anything meaningful to this discussion.

    why can't people own nuclear weapons?
    Because the 2nd doesnt apply to nuclear weapons?

    The "right to bear arms" does not cover "all weapons."
    Read the question again:
    What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?
    Now, answer the question.

  2. #162
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,096

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    I define arms as what a common soldier carries with him into battle.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  3. #163
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,798

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Why woud lyou deny that your position is subjective and inconsistent?
    Please don't assume anything that stupid. You try unsuccessfully to take what I said out of context and then apply a meaning that is not even close.

    "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." - Blackdog

    Nice bob and weave, but no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Seems pretty obvious to me.
    But -- glad we agree that your 'technology' argument is selective, and as such I will consider you to have conceded the point.
    It is selective, but this does not make it arbitrary as you would try and make it seem. Common sense again, try and apply it you will get farther.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    There's no need to look closer -- you already conceded the point, that the 'technology' argument is unsound.
    Not really, but if it makes you feel better thats cool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If a reporter's ability to libel, slander or give away sensitive information isnt a danger to society sufficient to justify their exclusion from the protection of the 1st amendment, why are these things banned?
    Just like arms conditions and laws exist to maintain the public safety even in reference to free speech. If you can't see this then you are willfully blind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Given that a reporter very mush has the ability to cause harm by doing these things, and then, by YOUR argument, should need a license.
    How am I wrong?
    Because a news report does not represent the same danger as a person armed with a Hellfire missile system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You have already admitted that your argument to this effect is subjective and inconsistent. Move on.
    Again, subjective does not mean inconsistent. Do I need to post the dictionary definitions?

    The US Government as a whole agrees with me by the way...

    "A destructive device is a firearm or explosive device that, in the United States, is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Examples of destructive devices are grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch, including some semi-automatic shotguns. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them. - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device]Destructive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This, of course, completely undermines your technology argument, based entirely on what you think they could or could not have thought of when they wrote the 2nd. Glad we can put that one to bed. Again.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Now you're moving the goalposts.
    Reading is fundamental.

    This was my first responce to you...

    "I also think it would be up to each state to license or in some way maintain reasonable over site on anything above firearms. - Blackdog

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    But, OK...
    Does requiring a reporter to 'take a class' before the government says he can report the news violate the 1st amendment?
    If so, then how does the same requirement applied to gun owers NOT violate the 2nd?
    Why do you keep repeating this tired argument? Even the government does not agree and maintains reasonable restrictions on destructive devices. So you really have no argument. Reality trumps your wanting no over site on arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You have done everyghing BUT answer my question.
    You simply want to apply a subjective and inconsistent standard to one right and not others. Your argument has no rational, consistent basis.
    I have been completely consistent, and as I have shown through evidence rational. If this were not the case your argument as tired as it is would change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What do you mean "if"?
    If you don't understand that the right to do something ends at the point where it harms someone else, as described by any number ouf court decisions, you really arent capable of adding anything meaningful to this discussion.
    This is not even worth responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Read the question again:
    What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?
    Now, answer the question.
    Not all weapons are covered under the 2nd amendment as I have shown. Otherwise anyone could own a claymore. Nukes are also arms, and as you have pointed out they are not covered as well.

    So unless you are talking about a specific weapon, your point is irrelevant again under current US law.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 06-11-09 at 11:11 AM.


    No Lives Matter

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    While I don't have a suitable solution, I think Voidwar's comparison is valid.

    Requiring a license to carry is exactly like requiring a license to speak freely or practice religion.

  5. #165
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Please don't assume anything that stupid.
    Its the only valid conclusion from your response.

    It is selective, but this does not make it arbitrary as you would try and make it seem.
    Given that you refuse to apply your standard across the board, you havent show it to be anything but.

    Just like arms conditions and laws exist to maintain the public safety even in reference to free speech. If you can't see this then you are willfully blind.
    Glad to see that you agree with me.

    Because a news report does not represent the same danger as a person armed with a Hellfire missile system.
    You're right -- a reporter represents a LARGER danger, given that he has the ability to comprimise the national security of the United States.

    According to YOUR argument, there's no reason to NOT license reporters.
    But, because your standard is subjective, arbitrary, inconsistent and unreasoned, you will refuse to agree.

    See above.
    Whats there to see?
    You completely undermined your own argument with your 'no way to know' comment, as your argument is based on the idea that 'if the founders would have know about AK47s, they would have....".

    Why do you keep repeating this tired argument?
    Because it illustrates, in a clear, concise and unmistakeable way, the subjectivity, arbitrary and incoinsistent manner in which you apply your argument, to the point of illustrating its invalidity.

    I have been completely consistent, and as I have shown through evidence rational. If this were not the case your argument as tired as it is would change.
    Not even close -- you apply your standard where and when you want, in an aribitrary and unreasoned manner.

    This is not even worth responding to.
    Truth hurts, eh?

    Not all weapons are covered under the 2nd amendment as I have shown.
    And that is irrelevant to my question.
    As you said -- reading is fundamental ; try actually reading my question:

    What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?

    If you cannot answer that question, you cannot show cause for requring a license to possess those weapons.

  6. #166
    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
    The BATF begs to differ...
    Who outranks who , the ATF or the Constitution ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    They on the other hand would probably arrest you.
    Ahh, so force will be required, but you personally won't dirty your hands , you will just vote to take my guns, and vote to hire thugs and send them ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Then you would be arrested if the government was notified.
    And If I kill these men and come for who sent them ?

  7. #167
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,798

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Who outranks who , the ATF or the Constitution ?
    realisticly or in fantasy land.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Ahh, so force will be required, but you personally won't dirty your hands , you will just vote to take my guns, and vote to hire thugs and send them ?
    Who said anything about guns? I am talking about large ordinance? I have no problems small arms of any type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    And If I kill these men and come for who sent them ?
    Ruby Ridge comes to mind.


    No Lives Matter

  8. #168
    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
    realisticly or in fantasy land.
    Legally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Who said anything about guns? I am talking about large ordinance? I have no problems small arms of any type.
    And If I make a big one, or manufacture a mine ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Ruby Ridge comes to mind.
    Does it ? What do you know about the assaination of Randy Weaver's son and wife ?

  9. #169
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,798

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?

    If you cannot answer that question, you cannot show cause for requring a license to possess those weapons.
    I think you misunderstood. I have no problem with small arms not being licensed. In my original post I was talking about anything above and beyond your average weapon. Why do you think I keep using the terms "mines, missiles and tanks."

    I should have stated anything below that and above machine guns. That is my fault.


    No Lives Matter

  10. #170
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Are we going to stamp serial numbers onto bibles now? They might be used to oppress a minority you know

Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •