• 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!

Which weapons should be legal to personally own?

Which weapons should be legal to personally own? (select as many as apply)

  • All types of handguns

    Votes: 51 81.0%

  • A fully automatic AK-47

    Votes: 41 65.1%

  • A fully automatic M-16

    Votes: 40 63.5%

  • a pipe bomb

    Votes: 25 39.7%

  • dynamite

    Votes: 35 55.6%

  • an atomic bomb

    Votes: 11 17.5%

  • none of the above

    Votes: 10 15.9%
  • Total voters
    63
Kandahar said:
I'm on the fence regarding AK-47s and M-16s. They really have no legitimate use...
Click to expand...
An AK or M16 can be effectively used for any legal purpose someone might have for a firearm (with the obvious exception of waterfowl hunting).
 
Goobieman said:
Anythng that falls under the definition of 'arms' as the term is used in the Constitution.

This clearly includes any class of firearm you care to mention.
Click to expand...
When the Constitution was written, one tenth of 1% of the populous were nut cases.
Today, the numbers are far greater.
So, to protect the people, much more strict firearm regulation is necessary.This seems to be not known by the gun-loving conservatives.
 
earthworm said:
When the Constitution was written, one tenth of 1% of the populous were nut cases.
Today, the numbers are far greater.
Click to expand...

And how do you know this?
 
Luna Tick said:
I am surprised that someone voted that it should be legal to own an atomic bomb. Or maybe I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Make it legal, or not, it really doesn't matter since no individual possesses the resources or wherewithal to construct a nuclear weapon.
 
earthworm said:
When the Constitution was written, one tenth of 1% of the populous were nut cases. Today, the numbers are far greater.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. You may try to prove this if you want.

So, to protect the people, much more strict firearm regulation is necessary.This seems to be not known by the gun-loving conservatives.
Click to expand...
You do know that "nut cases", as determined by law, are already not legally able to buy/own/use guns, right?
 
earthworm said:
None of the above.
How about love and tolerance, instead.
Click to expand...
Tell you what-
YOU can love and tolerate the junkie trying to kill you and rape your wife.
I'll put lead into his torso until he stops.
Afterwards, we'll see if you've changed your mind.
 
other said:
And how do you know this?
Click to expand...
I've been reading and reasoning for 60 years.
Have you?


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense]Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Goobieman said:
Tell you what-
YOU can love and tolerate the junkie trying to kill you and rape your wife.Wierd as this seems, has anyone ever tried my tolerance approach?
I'll put lead into his torso until he stops.
Afterwards, we'll see if you've changed your mind.
Click to expand...
My mind is not changed, but, do know this, it would be a case of "over my dead body".
And your approach works ?- more and more guns.....more and more prisons...
Check the stats, even if they are not to be trusted.
Why is India so much lower?
The people?
The religion?
 
Ethereal said:
And unicorns, too?
Click to expand...
Am I to assume, in the world of the Libertarian, that love and tolerance do not exist??
If so, I have found the problem, but not the solution. The solution is for Darwin and time to handle.
 
earthworm said:
I've been reading and reasoning for 60 years.
Have you?


Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

No. But I'm sure I could find many, many people older than you who would disagree with you. Age isn't a negative thing, but it doesn't necessarily make you right either.

I can tell you now that there is no way you can prove that "When the Constitution was written, one tenth of 1% of the populous were nut cases.
Today, the numbers are far greater." It is a pointless statement.

And what does the insanity defense have to do with this issue?
 
Goobieman said:
I doubt it. You may try to prove this if you want.
Is one tenth of one percent too many or too few?
This, of course is impossible to prove one way or the other as the definition of "insane" is so nublious.(never clearly defined and ever changing over the years)..if I cannot think of a word, I'll just create one on the fly.):rofl

You do know that "nut cases", as determined by law, are already not legally able to buy/own/use guns, right?
Click to expand...
Do you really think the law is effective??
Right now, there are far too many conservatives around for effective anti-gun laws.....but not the case in Europe.
Have you read the stats?
 
other said:
No. But I'm sure I could find many, many people older than you who would disagree with you.Few agree with me, but fewer can present a good argument. Age isn't a negative thing, but it doesn't necessarily make you right either.Agree

I can tell you now that there is no way you can prove that "When the Constitution was written, one tenth of 1% of the populous were nut cases.
Today, the numbers are far greater." It is a pointless statement.How so?
Do you agree that weapons are dangerous and should be restricted??

And what does the insanity defense have to do with this issue?
Click to expand...
Little or nothing.But read the article and similart articles, or read between the lines..
The point is, there are nut-cases walking among us. Nearly every year that goes by, one or more will make his name known..
Do you doubt this? Or do we just wring our hands and say that nothing can be done and that the first amendment is written on sacred paper.
 
earthworm said:
Little or nothing.But read the article and similart articles, or read between the lines..
The point is, there are nut-cases walking among us. Nearly every year that goes by, one or more will make his name known..
Do you doubt this? Or do we just wring our hands and say that nothing can be done and that the first amendment is written on holy paper.
Click to expand...

No, if it bothers us, we arm ourselves as per the 2nd amendment. It is not a protected right to ensure nutcases or criminals have easy access to weapons, it is protected so people can protect themselves against such people.
 
Hey earthworm, go spout that sugar-coated ivory tower stuff in the pacifist thread... nobody here is buying.

I've been 'reading and learning' for forty-four years. I also spent plenty of time out in the real world. If you want to go show love and tolerance towards a junkie who is trying to rape your wife, be my guest. I'll settle for a hollowpoint thru his brainpan and figure I did society a favor.

Be a good fellow and go post elsewhere...
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Hey earthworm, go spout that sugar-coated ivory tower stuff in the pacifist thread... nobody here is buying.

I've been 'reading and learning' for forty-four years. I also spent plenty of time out in the real world. If you want to go show love and tolerance towards a junkie who is trying to rape your wife, be my guest. I'll settle for a hollowpoint thru his brainpan and figure I did society a favor.

Be a good fellow and go post elsewhere...
Click to expand...

no, or does my idea of the truth hurt?
The old ways are not working, this includes burying one's head in the sand.
5 others responded with "none..."
But, I do not care if I am the only one....
 
other said:
No, if it bothers us, we arm ourselves as per the 2nd amendment. It is not a protected right to ensure nutcases or criminals have easy access to weapons, it is protected so people can protect themselves against such people.
Click to expand...
You wish to go to war against the criminals, I wish to know why we have criminals in the first place.
Is this wrong?
 
earthworm said:
You wish to go to war against the criminals, I wish to know why we have criminals in the first place.
Is this wrong?
Click to expand...


I've known lots of criminals. Some of them are insane. Some were never taught right and wrong. Many made a choice to harm others for their own benefit.

Sorry, but "society is to blame" does not fly around me. Some people are just evil, and you're not going to change that.
 
Unfortunatly some people are just plain stupid.

That's what Darwin awards are for....
 
earthworm said:
no, or does my idea of the truth hurt?
The old ways are not working, this includes burying one's head in the sand.
5 others responded with "none..."
But, I do not care if I am the only one....
Click to expand...


Yes, it does hurt... "painfully naive" is the phrase...
 
Kandahar said:
Of the choices on your list...I'd pick handguns and dynamite for sure, as they have legitimate uses.

I'm on the fence regarding AK-47s and M-16s. They really have no legitimate use and they're often used in gang crimes...but I realize that not everyone who wants to own them plans to go out and kill people. I don't necessarily think they need to be banned outright, but they should probably be restricted to a higher degree than handguns.

Pipe bombs and nuclear bombs are clearly a no...They serve no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

The legitimate use of machine guns is the hosing down of tyrants and those who support them.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The legitimate use of machine guns is the hosing down of tyrants and those who support them.
Click to expand...


Three-round bursts, Scarecrow... full auto wastes ammo. :mrgreen:
 
earthworm said:
Am I to assume, in the world of the Libertarian, that love and tolerance do not exist??
If so, I have found the problem, but not the solution. The solution is for Darwin and time to handle.
Click to expand...

Of course it exists. What does that matter? You think you can use love and tolerance to stop someone from raping your wife or shooting your children?
 
earthworm said:
no, or does my idea of the truth hurt?
The old ways are not working, this includes burying one's head in the sand.
5 others responded with "none..."
But, I do not care if I am the only one....
Click to expand...

You're not speaking the truth. You're just regurgitating naive sentiments about love and tolerance, as if they were going to stop a rapist or a murderer.

Sorry, but only guns will stop evil people, not appeals to emotion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom