• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Limits to Private Arsenals

Which should be legal for average citizens to own and use?

  • Total voters
    48
Goobieman said:
Because these are subjective terms that allow you to apply your argument where you want to, rather than in a consistient manner. You dont want to have to do that, and so you use those weasel-words.
Click to expand...

So common sense and "reasonable" are now weasel words? :lol:

Goobieman said:
If you do not want to apply your argument across theboard because to do so seems unreasonable to you, that should tell you someting about the soundess of your argument.
Click to expand...

It tells me something alright. It tells me you ignored most of my argument and don't want to admit that times and society's change and the laws must do so as well.

Goobieman said:
Really? Is that why libel and slander and inciting a riot and giving away information that comprimises national security are legal?
Click to expand...

They are not legal, again it is just common sense.

Goobieman said:
Oh wait -- they arent! Why is that?
Because they create a threat to society sufficient to jusify the determinatiuon that they are outside the right of free speech, and so can be banned -- a threat that is at LEAST as great as an individual with an RPG.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. See above.

Goobieman said:
So, why not require licenses for those that report the news and post a blog?
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read what I posted? It does not have to be a specific license, in can be as you stated in the case above over site in one form or another.

You just proved my point for me, Thanks

Please read what I am saying and don't just gloss over it.

Goobieman said:
Common sense doesnt play into that at all
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

Goobieman said:
-- said prohibition is based on the idea that your rights extend only so far as they do not harm others.
Click to expand...

This is what I am saying. :doh

PS you know why I changed my listing from Very Conservative to Moderate? Because I don't want to be associated with the lunacy I see coming from to many self proclaimed conservatives here.

It's not all of them, but so many I really no longer wish to be associated.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Why do you keep ignoring the words "reasonable" and "common sense." :roll:

I don't because using common sense or being a reasonable individual you can conclude an RPG is not the same threat to society as a CNN news report or someones blog.

It is the same kind of common sense that governs yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
Click to expand...

I like you. :) Stick around please. :)
 
Goobieman said:
So, why not require licenses for those that report the news and post a blog?
Click to expand...

You do need a license to broadcast television.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license]Broadcast license - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

News channels fall into that category.

---------------------------------------------

Accepting the terms of use blog providers/websites have is more or less the same thing as a license to operate a blog. The moment you violate those terms of use - they can do one of many things : 1. Remove your blog 2. Report your blog to the authorities if you've broken a law etc.

I think you should really read up on this matter and what kind of legal obstacles are put in front of "free speech" every single day.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So common sense and "reasonable" are now weasel words?
Click to expand...
As I said:
They are subjective terms that allow you to apply your argument where you want to, rather than in a consistient manner
I note that you dont even bother to deny that...

It tells me something alright. It tells me you ignored most of my argument and don't want to admit that times and society's change and the laws must do so as well.
Click to expand...
If thats what it tells you, then "common sense" and "reasonable" are traits you do not possess.

If the only way your argument works is when you apply it selectively across similar circumstances, based on when you think it makes sense, then your argument, at best, has HUGE holes in it.

This describes your technology argument -- that some items of technology are covered by the constitution and some arent, even though NONE of them are anything that the founders could have ever dreamed of.

And, to further address the unsoundness of your argument, lets interject a little 'common sense' -- which would Thomas jefferson find more familiar - an M16 or a computer hooked to the internet?

They are not legal, again it is just common sense.
You have got to be kidding. See above.
Click to expand...
I see you didnt bother to answer my question.
You base your argument on requiring licenses for (whatever weapon) on the threat they pose to society.
Given that those that report the news, etc, pose at least that level of threat, as evidenced by the banning of certain actions they might take, what argument is there that they too should not also require a license?

You just proved my point for me, Thanks
Please read what I am saying and don't just gloss over it.
Click to expand...
I havent proven anything -for- you -- I have, however, proven you to be subjective and inconsistent.

Yes it does.
Click to expand...
No, it doesnt -- its based on the legal concept that your rights extend so far as they do not harm anyone else. That's not "common sense", that s a basic tenet of what rights are.

This is what I am saying.
Click to expand...
REALLY.
Tell me then:
What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?

PS you know why I changed my listing from Very Conservative to Moderate? Because I don't want to be associated with the lunacy I see coming from to many self proclaimed conservatives here.
Click to expand...
Whatever, dude. I really dont care.
 
Hatuey said:
You do need a license to broadcast television.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
I dont recall asking about that needing a license to boracast on public airways -- in fact, I DO recall specifically addressing this in terms of it not being the same thing as it is regulatory license for the priviledged use of public property, not the personal exercise of an individual right.

I DO recall ask about requring a license, as a reporter, to report the news, be it on TV oir radio or in ink or on the internet.

But hey -- thanks for the straw and the fish!
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It is the same kind of common sense that governs yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
Click to expand...

You are 180 degrees wrong on this and this is the crux of the whole matter.

Yelling fire might be illegal in the theater, but in order to prevent that occuring, the state does not cut your tongue and vocal chords out and take them away from you, does it ?
 
I need to amend my statements.....

Mother in Law is coming over tonight....

can i have a claymore???? just one will be sufficiant:2razz:
 
Am I the only person who thinks the people who voted for the first three are completely insane?

I guess you all should be proud of yourselves, adherent to the constitution and all...
 
EulyssElvisCaustic said:
I need to amend my statements.....

Mother in Law is coming over tonight....

can i have a claymore???? just one will be sufficiant:2razz:
Click to expand...
Make sure you get the hi-powered one that says "front toward mama."
 
Sanitas said:
Am I the only person who thinks the people who voted for the first three are completely insane?
Click to expand...
I can honestly say you are not the only person who thinks I am completely insane. That was obvious Child's diagnosis some pages back (and was unoriginal even then).

Sanitas said:
I guess you all should be proud of yourselves, adherent to the constitution and all...
Click to expand...
Sure you want to be sarcastic to a nuke-totin' libertarian all hopped up on VX and oozing ebola?:2razz::2razz::2razz:
 
celticlord said:
Sure you want to be sarcastic to a nuke-totin' libertarian all hopped up on VX and oozing ebola?:2razz::2razz::2razz:
Click to expand...

And that is just his good side....
 
Voidwar said:
You are 180 degrees wrong on this and this is the crux of the whole matter.

Yelling fire might be illegal in the theater, but in order to prevent that occuring, the state does not cut your tongue and vocal chords out and take them away from you, does it ?
Click to expand...

No. Now please point out where I mentioned taking away anything? Or did I mention reasonable over site or licensing. :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
As I said:
They are subjective terms that allow you to apply your argument where you want to, rather than in a consistient manner
I note that you dont even bother to deny that...
Click to expand...

Why would I deny it? I think having large destructive weapons being overseen or licensed is a common sense issue.

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.

Goobieman said:
If thats what it tells you, then "common sense" and "reasonable" are traits you do not possess.
Click to expand...

I don't know lets look closer...

I live next store to a person who just bought a claymore and knows little to nothing about it.

Yea no common sense here. :roll:

Goobieman said:
If the only way your argument works is when you apply it selectively across similar circumstances, based on when you think it makes sense, then your argument, at best, has HUGE holes in it.
Click to expand...

A reporter doing a news report is not even close to a person with a rocket launcher. Your argument boiled down is nothing but unrealistic philosophical mental masturbation.

Goobieman said:
This describes your technology argument -- that some items of technology are covered by the constitution and some arent, even though NONE of them are anything that the founders could have ever dreamed of.
Click to expand...

Realistically this is absolutely correct.

Goobieman said:
And, to further address the unsoundness of your argument, lets interject a little 'common sense' -- which would Thomas jefferson find more familiar - an M16 or a computer hooked to the internet?
Click to expand...

Irrelivant as he is dead and we have no idea what his reaction would be. We do know weapons we have today pose a serius threat that weapons then did not.

That is logic and common sense. Don't confuse it for hypothetical nonsense.

Goobieman said:
I see you didnt bother to answer my question.
You base your argument on requiring licenses for (whatever weapon) on the threat they pose to society.
Given that those that report the news, etc, pose at least that level of threat, as evidenced by the banning of certain actions they might take, what argument is there that they too should not also require a license?
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Goobieman said:
I havent proven anything -for- you -- I have, however, proven you to be subjective and inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Go back and read it again.

Goobieman said:
No, it doesnt -- its based on the legal concept that your rights extend so far as they do not harm anyone else. That's not "common sense", that s a basic tenet of what rights are.
Click to expand...

If this is the way all rights work, why can't people own nuclear weapons? Why do we have a nuclear regulatory commission. Why do we have levels of weapons licenses?

Sorry the SCOTUS has not ruled it illegal or unconstitutional. Could it be they recognize the hazard they represent to the common good? Hmmm.

Goobieman said:
REALLY.
Tell me then:
What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

The "right to bear arms" does not cover "all weapons." If this were the case I could own a fully automatic weapon without a federal license.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
Anyone oversee or license your vocal chords ?
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

Do you honestly think licensing someones vocal cords is the equivalent of licensing a mine?
 
Last edited:
Sanitas said:
Am I the only person who thinks the people who voted for the first three are completely insane?

I guess you all should be proud of yourselves, adherent to the constitution and all...
Click to expand...

No, especially since the number of votes on those is low and several of them are joke votes. But is at least one person here who actually thinks private ownership of those three should be legal.
 
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding. :roll:

Do you honestly think licensing someones vocal cords is the equivalent of licensing a mine?
Click to expand...

Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.

You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.
 
Goshin said:
Lawd...i really don't want to do this, I just know its going to be the same old stuff for the fifteenth time...sigh.

Okay, what obvious reason? Other than, its the type of firearm most commonly used for self-defense? Other than, its the most convenient firearm for a law abiding citizen to carry for self-defense?

OH, I almost forgot, I'm leaving on vacation in the morning! Woo-hoo! I'll have to leave you gents to carry on without me for a few days, try not to be too ecstatic about it. :rofl


Laters. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Have a great vacation...
 
Voidwar said:
Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.
Click to expand...

Reality says different, and so does the law.

Voidwar said:
You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I am asking the government to forcibly deprive anyone of anything? Did you bother to read my argument at all?

Since when did licensing or over site to make sure a person is competent to own a very destructive device become depriving someone of something?
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
Yes. You have no right to regulate arms anymore than you do vocal chords.

You can pass laws against misusing both of the aforementioned types of apparatus, without trying to forcibly deprive the people of the apparatus.
Click to expand...

Rights are nothing more than man made laws about what they think should be rather than what is... The Constitution is no more valid than what I think, it is only right and I am only wrong by the governments threat of force in backing the Constitution were I to not obey it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom