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 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #11
    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 celticlord View Post
    The earth-shattering KABOOM!
    I can't tell if you're joking. Or if you've gone insane.

    Provide a rational argument as to why they are different. And many chemical weapons are meant to explode overhead with sizable explosions to produce the widest range of contamination.

    Exactly. Again, the distinction is the earth-shattering KABOOM!
    See above.

    And aerosol Ebola does?
    You failed to provide a rational argument.

    Pepper spray is not fully legal. Some jurisdictions do not allow it.
    Fair enough, but spray is not the only delivery method. One can deliver it through various grenade and riot weapons.

    The Defense Technology 37mm Launcher is legal for public purchase and is partially designed for use of delivery of riot suppressing agents including natural agents.

    And they can, because it is not an "arm", and thus there is no fundamental right to pepper spray.
    See above.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #12
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I don't really see the point in outlawing biological or chemical weapons, or tanks, or rocket launchers, or jet fighters. If someone has the means to acquire any of these weapons then a law isn't going to make a bit of difference to these people. Do we honestly think that someone who has the means and desire to obtain these things is going to pay any attention to a law that bans them? So, whatever, ban them, don't ban them, it doesn't really matter. You might as well ban super-powers while you're at it...
    Yes, if you happen to have $50 billion sitting in your bank and you're chummy with A.Q. Khan, you could theoretically buy a nuke regardless of the law. But chances are you'd set off lots of red flags with the feds long before you ever got your hands on the nuke. If they were legal, then the feds would have no cause to stop you, even if they were well aware of your plans.

    Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-08-09 at 04:37 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 05:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The fully loaded jet fighter isn't much of an issue due to cost, maintenance, and fuel concerns so go ahead. You forgot tanks as well.
    Ikari-Not really I can get you a fully loaded Mig21UT from Poland with Guns Ammo and Drop tanks for all under $100,000 USD, the cost of maintance isn't to bad about adverage of a mid-size twin engine aircraft.

    As for Tanks my Cozz. owns a fully restored Churchill and Sherman, they cost him more in gas and maintance then my two WWII Training aircraft.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    I would like to see someone actually try to acquire and brandish the higher level weaponry in that list and see how the government reacts. You would never be allowed to hold onto such technology as a civilian because of the threat to public safety.

    This argument centers around idealism but not reality. In reality, no one could afford half of that stuff, and if they could, they more than likely would not be able to keep it.

    I'm a strong believer in implied powers and reinterpretation of the constitution in accordance with modern needs, but when it comes to this, I sincerely don't believe that the founders intended for it to go to such a level.

    I'll play devil's advocate though and say that they probably intended for the Second Amendment to be a means for the civilian population to have equal capability with the government. On those terms, anyone who can afford such technology should be allowed to possess it. Back in the day, it was about rifles; today, it's about much bigger guns.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,269

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Ikari-Not really I can get you a fully loaded Mig21UT from Poland with Guns Ammo and Drop tanks for all under $100,000 USD, the cost of maintance isn't to bad about adverage of a mid-size twin engine aircraft.
    Awesome, can you also get me $100,000 USD?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Whatever you can afford to acquire and keep, which pretty much rules out the most dangerous forms of biological and nuclear weapons. Only governments that steal trillions with impunity could ever be foolish enough to create those...

    Remember that in a free society, anything that can damage your neighbor's property is a liability, and it would be in your own best interest to invest in insurance and other means of risk mitigation to keep everything safe.

    Furthermore, people who are perceived to be dangerous would be ostracized. Would you buy socks from Kim Jong-il?


    (Please read up existing publications on Anarcho-Capitalism before asking obvious questions - they have all been answered quite effectively. Here's a free audio book to get you started.)
    Last edited by Alex Libman; 06-08-09 at 04:45 PM.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes, if you happen to have $50 billion sitting in your bank...
    Which nobody in the world does.

    Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.
    If someone tried to attack America in a jet fighter I would just laugh hysterically as they were shot out of the sky by these guys...


  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 05:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post

    Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.

    Sorry Sir but you really don't know much about this now do you as I said above what would you like me to get you.

    A few example I present you from this forum,

    A Warbirds Resource Group Site :: View topic - Warbird Heritage Foundation A-4B inspection to Airworthy

    A Warbirds Resource Group Site :: View topic - MiG-21UM, MiG-23UB (to flying status)

    Also I suggest you check out the fine folks at Collins foundation who own and operated a F-4 .

    Also in England their is the Vulcan group who own and fly the last of the V-Bombers.

    I can't find the link to the guys who just brought in three Su-27s and a Mig-29 but they should be flying at least one of the 27s by Sept and hope to have the 29 flying by Dec.

    So like I said what would you like let me know I'm sure with my connection I can find it for you.

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    09-29-16 @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    There are costs, beyond the sticker price, of operating something like an aircraft. Maintenance, fuel, etc.....Do you have access to a supply system, to order new parts from, when a part goes bad? Because parts are going to go bad. Do you have the time of day, to do all the checks and inspections necessary to insure safe flight all by yourself? And then, are you going to have the skill and ability to fly the thing effectively in the first place?

    Besides, there are some critical parts of a aircraft for weapons delivery, that are classified secret or top secret. Where are you going to get those parts? Rare is the person that could fathom just building one part of a weapons delivery system, much less having the knowledge to integrate all of them. Its way more complex than some simple electronics class.

    In essence, I am not ever going to be worried about somebody buying a fighter aircraft, even if it were legal to own one.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,521

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    I suppose I have to weigh in here, even though to be honest I'm getting tired of arguing about guns. Mostly the same old **** round and round.

    I believe the original intent of the 2A is that law abiding citizens should be able to own weapons suitable for:
    1. Self-defense
    2. Sport
    3. Militia service
    4. All other lawful purposes.

    1 and 2 would cover blades, saps, handguns, shotguns, and most rifles...and at least arguably autorifles and subguns.

    3 - militia service...anything an individual soldier would carry that constituted a "small arm" or "light support weapon".
    This would include autorifles, light machine guns, infantry anti-tank weapons, body armor, grenades, and suchlike.

    Things like Tanks, AFVs, Jet fighters, Stingers... well maybe. Hardly anybody could afford them. The utility of these for anything short of repelling a foreign invasion or something of that sort would tend to limit their appeal.

    In the intrest of compromise, I'd accept having to have a special permit (background check, storage regulations, etc) for anything heavier than an autorifle. Possibly membership in a citizen's militia as a requirement.

    (That's actually not much different than what we have now with Class III permits, other than I am not fully convinced that selective fire rifles or subguns should fall under Class III.)

    What you can carry out in public is a slightly different matter, imo.




    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
    of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
    (Federalist Paper #29)

    "Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
    and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
    something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
    is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery).
    Last edited by Goshin; 06-08-09 at 04:59 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •