• 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
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Goobieman said:
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...
Click to expand...

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:
Blackdog said:
Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whats so bad about these? :2razz:

180px-Claymore_%28PSF%29-2.jpg


Heres a little something on claymore mines. ;)

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

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.

Goobieman said:
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,.
Click to expand...

See above.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some are reasonable and some are not.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
Then, you do not understand the argument.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly, you are trying to play a silly game of semantics.

Goobieman said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goshin said:
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. :cool:

(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.
Click to expand...
+1

Though I'd support state government maintained militias that can possess any weapon it chooses.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I also have a right to be safe in my person.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
See above. You have no right to personal safety; any argument based on that notion is unsound.

So again apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
It was also a meaningless example -- see above.

I understand it perfectly, you are trying to play a silly game of semantics.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have a very crappy one someone gave me. Was j/k with ya though.
Click to expand...

I know. I was just braggin' on my claymore. :2razz:



I'm sure they could be made to just be command detonated but at the moment they aren't.
Click to expand...

According the the WIKI article that's the type the US uses most often now.

wiki said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd pretty much say that the responsible use of claymores by a private citizen would involve:

Thoroughly fenced property.

Property large enough so that shrapnel from the weapon could not cross that fence under any circumstances.

And thorough posting of the property as being defended by lethal explosive devices.

They're not for Joe Schmuck living in the suburbs, no.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'd pretty much say that the responsible use of claymores by a private citizen would involve:

Thoroughly fenced property.

Property large enough so that shrapnel from the weapon could not cross that fence under any circumstances.

And thorough posting of the property as being defended by lethal explosive devices.

They're not for Joe Schmuck living in the suburbs, no.
Click to expand...

I don't really have any issue with them under those specific circumstances.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the founding fathers weren't alive to see the destructive power of the weapons today. Or the fact that one man with an RPG can light up a city block in seconds. This in regards to the second amendment.

It is really sad that some people are unwilling to admit that times have changed. If common sense cannot be applied reasonably to account for our changing society, we mite as well issue in a new dark age right now.

The Constitution (as much as I believe in it) is over 200 years old. Society's, technology and people change. We have to adapt to these changes or be like a large part of the Middle East and still living in the 15th century.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Unfortunately the founding fathers weren't alive to see the destructive power of the weapons today. Or the fact that one man with an RPG can light up a city block in seconds. This in regards to the second amendment.
Click to expand...
They also were not able to conceive of the internet, CNN, the telephone or using satellites to spy on people -- and yet, the Constitution covers these things.

Or, do you agree that it should not?
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
.
Click to expand...


Tucker-I think you and the rest who think only the rich can get a Fighter jet are a tad misunderstood. I can get you a fully operational Mig21T with all the FAA/CAA paperwork for under the price of most SUVs out their.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Tucker-I think you and the rest who think only the rich can get a Fighter jet are a tad misunderstood. I can get you a fully operational Mig21T with all the FAA/CAA paperwork for under the price of most SUVs out their.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. Shoot me the pamphlet and I'll let you know if I am buying or not.
 
as a Class 3 permit holder and a Concealed handgun License holder....I think semi auto rifles and handguns are fine IF REGISTERED.....as far as the rest...its quite obvious that if one has the money they can buy any of those...but its ridiculous to even comment on the ownership of such.

n1377943687_214472_9333.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope you don't have to show any of these yes you do need an import license for Ex-Soviet Aircraft and certain Western Build Aircraft. As for the knowledge the only item the FAA ask for is an approved maintance program and that the pilot(s) have a the right amount of training in said airframe

Also you folks do understand that anyone can also go out and purchase say a T-54 Tank rebuild and drive it or a Sherman,King Tiger ect. ect. you don't need any special permit of training for Armor.
 
EulyssElvisCaustic said:
as a Class 3 permit holder and a Concealed handgun License holder....I think semi auto rifles and handguns are fine IF REGISTERED
Click to expand...
-How does -that- make them OK?
-How does registration not qualify as an infringement, under the 2nd amendment?
 
Scorpion89 said:
Tucker-I think you and the rest who think only the rich can get a Fighter jet are a tad misunderstood. I can get you a fully operational Mig21T with all the FAA/CAA paperwork for under the price of most SUVs out their.
Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking of a fighter jet + ordinance. That might get a tad more pricey.

But even if your average joe could get ahold of one with ease, they are a bitch to conceal. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom