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 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #71
    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
    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.
    This is not -necessarily- the case.
    I can inject you with a biotoxin, killing you and no one else.

    Also, any incompetence of the builder while making a gun at home cannot lead to massive death tolls of those in the surrounding area.
    This is also not -necessarily- the case.
    I can build several thousand simple guns,all with the same flaw, killing several thousand people.

    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.
    My argument against NBC weapons has been noted. I dont think you need to go past that argument to effectively argue against their "casual" posession

  2. #72
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,368

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is not -necessarily- the case.
    I can inject you with a biotoxin, killing you and no one else.
    True. I'm thinking more along the lines of the creation of these weapons in one's basement or creation of effective bioweapons. There's no need to use a biotoxin in a syringe since household bleach would have the same effect and be even cheaper to do what you suggest.

    I'm thinking of bioweapons used as an actual bioweapon. Not as a replacement for bleach.

    This is also not -necessarily- the case.
    I can build several thousand simple guns,all with the same flaw, killing several thousand people.
    Again, that wouldn't necessarily be indiscriminate. It would only kill the people who are using the guns, it wouldn't spread throughout the population like wildfire affecting those who are several degrees removed from the place where the weapon was deployed. It would still have some degree of discriminatory nature.

    My argument against NBC weapons has been noted. I dont think you need to go past that argument to effectively argue against their "casual" posession
    True enough.

    To be honest though, if NBC's could be shown to have more potential benefit than potential harm for casual possession, I would support their possession.

    I don't necessarily think that can ever happen.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #73
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    One of the things about belonging to a political forum is, the people there seem so obsessed with politics they subscribe to ideologies rather than common sense.

    Common sense is, there is no reason to let people own anything more powerful than a handgun or a rifle. Nuclear weapons are not required for self-defense and putting them in the hands of anyone who wants them creates a threat to humanity.
    Glad you agree, BTW, rifle ammo is rifle ammo, and I don't know of any automatics with more firepower than their semi-automatic or bolt action counterparts, the only change is rate of fire. So then automatics are okay to own in your opinion?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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:

    Sverdlovsk anthrax leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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.
    Pretty much says it all, except I've no problems with considering the private ownership of perimeter defense weapons such as claymores to be covered by the Second Amendment.

    Given that the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to issue letters of marque, which means not just anyone could arm a sloop and go hunting for the enemy, by extension it's clear that the Constitution wouldn't allow the private ownership of armed aircraft.

  5. #75
    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 Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Given that the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to issue letters of marque, which means not just anyone could arm a sloop and go hunting for the enemy, by extension it's clear that the Constitution wouldn't allow the private ownership of armed aircraft.
    You might not be ablew to arm a ship to go hunting for the enemy, but, under the premise of the 2nd, you -could- arm a ship for defense against those with letters of marque against the US.

  6. #76
    Hi
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-28-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    26,288

    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.
    I stopped at claymores mostly because it would be impractical for most people to own a jet fighter.

    As far as gas, nerve agent type stuff. Well, it ain't that hard to make.
    Someone will a little intent could make a lot of those things with little money and a little bit more time.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #77
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,783

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    I stopped a Nuclear weapons. Anything at that level or above on the poll has absolutely no reason to be owned by an average citizen.

    If someone can legally own anything below that and have the proper state or local licenses and the money, I see no reason why they should be restricted.


    No Lives Matter

  8. #78
    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
    I stopped a Nuclear weapons. Anything at that level or above on the poll has absolutely no reason to be owned by an average citizen.

    If someone can legally own anything below that and have the proper state or local licenses and the money, I see no reason why they should be restricted.
    Not meaning to single you out here...

    I always cringe when someone suggests that we should have to have a license on order to exercise our rights and/or that requring such a license is acceptable.

    If you were required to have a license to report the news...
    If you were required to have a license to post a blog...
    If you were required to have a license to have an abortion...

  9. #79
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,783

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Not meaning to single you out here...

    I always cringe when someone suggests that we should have to have a license on order to exercise our rights and/or that requring such a license is acceptable.

    If you were required to have a license to report the news...
    If you were required to have a license to post a blog...
    If you were required to have a license to have an abortion...
    Apples and oranges.

    If someone owns a fully operational and armed jet fighter they need a license, period. They should have to prove they are knowledgeable in the operation and maintaining of such a destructive device. Much like our present laws on explosives etc.

    Licenses for certain things are a necessary evil to maintain reasonable public safety.

    So you would be OK with Un-licensed airline pilots? That is how unreasonable your argument sounds to me.

    PS I also think it would be up to each state to license or in some way maintain reasonable over site on anything above firearms.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 06-09-09 at 12:36 PM.


    No Lives Matter

  10. #80
    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
    Apples and oranges.
    Not so much.
    Rights are rights; requiring a license to exercise a right creates a precondition to that right not inherent to same. If, on those grounds, it is unacceptable to license one right, it is just as unacceptable to license any of them.

    If someone owns a fully operational and armed jet fighter they need a license, period.
    To -fly- that fighter, under certain conditions, yes -- but this isnt a right.
    Much for the same reason you need a drivers' license, and how driving isn't a right.
    Note that the -owner- of neither the fighter nor the car need have a license,.

    Licenses for certain things are a necessary evil to maintain reasonable public safety.
    But -all- of the licenses you describe here have to do with the time place and manner of the exercise, not the basic exercise itself -- and all of them have to do with the use of public property of some kind.

    And, for that matter, the two specfiic examples here aren't even the exercise of a right -- there is no right to drive on public roads or to fly in public airspace.

    So you would be OK with Un-licensed airline pilots? That is how unreasonable your argument sounds to me.
    Then, you do not understand the argument.

    And you also did not explain how the examples I gave are unacceptable instances of licensing requirements, while the license to own a gun is not...

Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •