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 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 258

Thread: Limits to Private Arsenals

  1. #81
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,367

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.
    I'm currently undecided regarding claymores and such. I'm not entirely against them outright, but I'd need a lot more information than what I currently have.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #82
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    I'm currently undecided regarding claymores and such. I'm not entirely against them outright, but I'd need a lot more information than what I currently have.
    Whats so bad about these?



    Heres a little something on claymore mines.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore_mines]M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    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

  3. #83
    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 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.
    I also have a right to be safe in my person. An idiot who owns a claymore but knows little about it is a threat. He is now infringing on my right to be safe in my person. His right ends at that point.

    So again apples and oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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,.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    Some are reasonable and some are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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.
    It was an example and you know it. I could have used a missile launcher or an RPG. It makes no difference. You need to be licensed or have some kind of over site for the public to remain safe with such destructive weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Then, you do not understand the argument.
    I understand it perfectly, you are trying to play a silly game of semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    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...
    What part of "public safety" did you miss? The things you mentioned are of no direct threat to anyones safety. Weapons of certain types above firearms are very much a threat.


    No Lives Matter

  4. #84
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.
    +1

    Though I'd support state government maintained militias that can possess any weapon it chooses.
    Last edited by scourge99; 06-09-09 at 01:12 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #85
    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 also have a right to be safe in my person.
    No you don't.
    Any right to safety you have lives in your right to self-defense.

    An idiot who owns a claymore but knows little about it is a threat. He is now infringing on my right to be safe in my person. His right ends at that point
    See above. You have no right to personal safety; any argument based on that notion is unsound.

    So again apples and oranges.
    Not so. Rights are rights.

    Given your argument, above, you should have no issue with requring a license to post a blog or to report the news, as anyone doing either could, intentionally or otherwise, cause you harm, thereby violating your 'right to safety'.

    Some are reasonable and some are not.
    Irrelevant. None of them are examples of requiring a license to exercise a right, and so are meaningless in this discussion.

    It was an example and you know it.
    It was also a meaningless example -- see above.

    I understand it perfectly, you are trying to play a silly game of semantics.
    Not at all.
    You're using the 'need' to license people in their exervcise of a priviledged use of a public asset as an example of why/why it is OK to require a license for the exercise of a basic, personal right. The latter does not follow from the former -- YOU are arguing apples and oranges.

    What part of "public safety" did you miss? The things you mentioned are of no direct threat to anyones safety. Weapons of certain types above firearms are very much a threat.
    Aside fom the fact that your position was that you were "ok" with the posession of any weapon below nukes (including firearms) as long as they "have the proper state or local licenses"...

    Simple posession of a weapon threatens no one, just as the simple possession of a word processor (or, for that matter, a penis) threatens no one.

  6. #86
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,367

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Whats so bad about these?

    Nothing. I actually own one of those.

    Heres a little something on claymore mines.

    M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If they were command detonated I could probably support their legality.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #87
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Nothing. I actually own one of those.
    I have a very crappy one someone gave me. Was j/k with ya though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If they were command detonated I could probably support their legality.
    I'm sure they could be made to just be command detonated but at the moment they aren't.
    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

  8. #88
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,367

    Re: Limits to Private Arsenals

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I have a very crappy one someone gave me. Was j/k with ya though.
    I know. I was just braggin' on my claymore.



    I'm sure they could be made to just be command detonated but at the moment they aren't.
    According the the WIKI article that's the type the US uses most often now.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    When in use by the U.S. Military, the M18A1 Claymore Anti-Personnel Mine is most often command-detonated. Such use is permitted by the Mine Ban Treaty. However, use of Claymore mines in uncontrolled (tripwire) mode is prohibited by the treaty.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #89
    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
    No you don't.
    Any right to safety you have lives in your right to self-defense.

    See above. You have no right to personal safety; any argument based on that notion is unsound.

    Not so. Rights are rights.

    Given your argument, above, you should have no issue with requring a license to post a blog or to report the news, as anyone doing either could, intentionally or otherwise, cause you harm, thereby violating your 'right to safety'.

    Irrelevant. None of them are examples of requiring a license to exercise a right, and so are meaningless in this discussion.

    It was also a meaningless example -- see above.

    Not at all.
    You're using the 'need' to license people in their exervcise of a priviledged use of a public asset as an example of why/why it is OK to require a license for the exercise of a basic, personal right. The latter does not follow from the former -- YOU are arguing apples and oranges.

    Aside fom the fact that your position was that you were "ok" with the posession of any weapon below nukes (including firearms) as long as they "have the proper state or local licenses"...

    Simple posession of a weapon threatens no one, just as the simple possession of a word processor (or, for that matter, a penis) threatens no one.
    All this is pretty irrelevant. As it stands now you cannot own explosives or explosive devices without a class 3 Federal License. So in reality it has not been found unconstitutional which reinforces my point.

    Obviously reality and the common sense of the situation wins out.


    No Lives Matter

  10. #90
    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
    All this is pretty irrelevant. As it stands now you cannot own explosives or explosive devices without a class 3 Federal License. So in reality it has not been found unconstitutional which reinforces my point.
    Obviously reality and the common sense of the situation wins out.
    None of which addresses my point, in that I am shocked how it is that some people will squeal like a stuck pig when posed with the idea of requiring a license to exercise right A, but don't see a problem with requring a license to exercise right B.

    Rights are rights - if something infringes right A, it will also infringe right B.

Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •