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 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #61
    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

    Maybe that was irony. I'm probably too tired right now to recognize irony properly.

    I got to finish packing and go to bed.

    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.'.."

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,423
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    No vote
    Let these fools own anything, after they pass all the hoops and hurdles.
    Similar to drugs - tax and control...

  3. #63
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Hey Crippler,

    Not trying to be an arse here but the last time I check Mongolia operates a very small airforce made up of Soviet aircraft, here is the list from Jane's

    Antonov An-24 Coke Soviet Union tactical transport An-24 20-4 grounded
    Antonov An-26 Curl Soviet Union tactical transport An-26 4-3 grounded
    Antonov An-2 Colt Soviet Union biplane transport An-2 10
    Harbin Y-12 People's Republic of China light transport Y-12 4 retired
    Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed Soviet Union fighter MiG-21PFM/UM 44/14-8 grounded
    Mil Mi-24 Hind Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-24V 12-4 Anti-tank
    Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-8 20 Anti-tank
    Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union transport helicopter Mi-8 12 Transport only/Replaced
    Mil Mi-171 Hip Russia transport helicopter Mi-171 2 Transport only
    Well I was in Alaska for a joint training excercise, and the Mongolians were there, with harriers. This was about 7-8 years ago.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #64
    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 obvious Child View Post
    So in a discussion with a nameless handle, he agreed that the average citizen should have the legal right to own any and all kinds of armaments. I'd like to see just what the rest of the forum agrees should be legal and what the rest of you people think about the list.
    The 2nd amendent protects the right to own any and all smal arms.
    It also covers anything 'in common use' as part of a soldier's 'ordinary equipment'.

    This precludes several of the options on the list.

    The poll options illustrates the OP's ignorance of the issue -- "machineguns" and "automatic rifles" are the same thing.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 06-09-09 at 08:49 AM.

  5. #65
    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 Redress View Post
    I can't select the option I would really like to.

    In seriousness, of those on the list, I only think handguns should be allowed, or in other words, about what is legal now.
    You know that 'automatic rifles' and 'machineguns' are legal now -- yes?

  6. #66
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Well I was in Alaska for a joint training excercise, and the Mongolians were there, with harriers. This was about 7-8 years ago.
    I think you confused Mongolia with UK

  7. #67
    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

    Also, the subject line is misleading.

    It should ask 'what weapons do Americans have a right to own' or somesuch -- "limits to private arseals" speaks more to how MANY weapons we should be allowed to have.

    The answer to THAT question?
    As many as we want.

  8. #68
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    I only went with the firearms. The nukes and fighter jets are only going to be available to the very rich, so I considered them practically irrelevant.

    But even a poor person can make bio-weapons with very little effort.

    All you need is a little knowledge of biology (a microbiology course at a junior college along with some books is more than enough) and some cheap equipment to do it, all of which is legally and readily available to the mass public.

    I think the development and possession of such weaponized biological agents should be illegal, not because I think that banning such would prevent those hellbent on making them form doing so, but because if they were readily usable by the public at large, the potential for an inadvertent deployment of these bio-weapons would increase.

    And since these are not the types of weapons that are discriminatory (don't just affect the target) I don't feel they should be legally accesable to the general public.



    P.S. I'm not saying I could develop ebola in my basement, but I'd have little to no problem developing anthrax or Botulinum toxin if that were my goal.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #69
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    But even a poor person can make bio-weapons with very little effort.

    All you need is a little knowledge of biology (a microbiology course at a junior college along with some books is more than enough) and some cheap equipment to do it, all of which is legally and readily available to the mass public.
    Hmmm...
    The rabid anti-gunners will argue that we should not just ban guns, but, since anyone with minimal machining skills and a simple set of machine tools can make one, things that will allow us to make guns shoud be banned as well.

    GIven what you said here, I wonder how much longer we'll be able to legally possess a toaster oven...?

  10. #70
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Hmmm...
    The rabid anti-gunners will argue that we should not just ban guns, but, since anyone with minimal machining skills and a simple set of machine tools can make one, things that will allow us to make guns shoud be banned as well.

    GIven what you said here, I wonder how much longer we'll be able to legally possess a toaster oven...?
    I'd say the primary difference is that guns are a discriminatory weapon. They can be used to hit the intended target and only the intended target. If they fail at this, and hit unintended targets, this is a flaw in the person utilizing the weapon, and not an inherent aspect of the weapon itself.

    Bioweapons cannot be utilized in this way. They are totally indiscriminate. They cannot be used to only hit an intended target. It is an inherent aspect of the weapon itself that makes it indiscriminate.

    Also, any incompetence of the builder while making a gun at home cannot lead to massive death tolls of those in the surrounding area. With a bioweapon, it is entirely possible, that incompetence during production can lead to massive deaths. If someone fails to use proper filtration in their at home lab, and the bioagent is released into the community at large, any person can be a victim.

    Here's an example of a case where trained specialists had just such an error occur:

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_Anthrax_leak]Sverdlovsk anthrax leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    If there existed some form of discriminatory bioagent that could affect the intended target and intended target only, then I would be in favor of that weapon becoming legally possesable by the public at large. But such a bio-weapon does not exist.


    Edit: In other words, my argument for keeping them illegal was in the non-quoted section of my post. It wasn't because they were easily accessible, it was because the potential for harm caused by simple possession and procurement outweighs any potential benefits to procurement and possession.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-09-09 at 10:36 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 7 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •