• 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
Those babies are obsolete.

They are. They dropped very few munitions for OIF. We wrote something on one of their bombs, and that bomb was on the Harrier for 1 week. Our jets came back empty every time. I was just suprised, when we did a training excercise, that Mongolia showed up, with aircraft no less.
 
Hell even Mongolia has Harriers.

Hey Crippler,

Not trying to be an arse here but the last time I check Mongolia operates a very small airforce made up of Soviet aircraft, here is the list from Jane's

Antonov An-24 Coke Soviet Union tactical transport An-24 20-4 grounded
Antonov An-26 Curl Soviet Union tactical transport An-26 4-3 grounded
Antonov An-2 Colt Soviet Union biplane transport An-2 10
Harbin Y-12 People's Republic of China light transport Y-12 4 retired
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed Soviet Union fighter MiG-21PFM/UM 44/14-8 grounded
Mil Mi-24 Hind Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-24V 12-4 Anti-tank
Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-8 20 Anti-tank
Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union transport helicopter Mi-8 12 Transport only/Replaced
Mil Mi-171 Hip Russia transport helicopter Mi-171 2 Transport only
 
I can't tell if you're joking. Or if you've gone insane.
Some would argue there's not much difference between the two....or when I'm serious. Go figure.

Provide a rational argument as to why they are different. And many chemical weapons are meant to explode overhead with sizable explosions to produce the widest range of contamination.
My take on it is that chemical weapons and biological weapons are just means of poisoning vast groups of people. That's not the same as killing them properly by blowing them into tiny bits, incinerating them, or otherwise dismembering/disemboweling them. It's a stylistic quibble, I realize, but that's just me.

You failed to provide a rational argument.
Ok, you got me there....but I've provided enough "rational" arguments on these interminable gun threads. So I decided to throw some irrational ones in for some variety.

Basically, to be a "real" weapon, there has to be an earth-shattering KABOOM! (he said in his finest Marvin the Martian voice)
 
Really and when was the last time you've been to Romania and you do understand that Sibiu was chosen to be European Capital of Culture in 2007.

Also Romania is consider an upper-middle income country and is one of the few post Soviet Counties to not have any major uprising andis a very nice place to visit.

Yeah, my time volunteering in an orphanage in Haulecesti taught me otherwise. ;)
 
There are alot of people that own old military craft. They fly them into the EAA show in Oshkosh/Fon du Lac, WI every year. But they don't have any bombs with them ;)

Which is the key. I think that old military aircraft shows are pretty cool. But that's quite different from people flying Sukoi-37 flankers fully armed.
 
Which is the key. I think that old military aircraft shows are pretty cool. But that's quite different from people flying Sukoi-37 flankers fully armed.

If you want a Mig20 or Su-27 I know where you can get a few right here in the US that have FAA N#'s and aren't part of the US military.
 
The only one I didn't think should be allowed was hand-guns, the reason is pretty obvious.
 
The only one I didn't think should be allowed was hand-guns, the reason is pretty obvious.

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:
 
The only one I didn't think should be allowed was hand-guns, the reason is pretty obvious.

Did you get the question backwards by any chance?
 
Maybe that was irony. I'm probably too tired right now to recognize irony properly. :rofl

I got to finish packing and go to bed. :lol:
 
No vote
Let these fools own anything, after they pass all the hoops and hurdles.
Similar to drugs - tax and control...
 
Hey Crippler,

Not trying to be an arse here but the last time I check Mongolia operates a very small airforce made up of Soviet aircraft, here is the list from Jane's

Antonov An-24 Coke Soviet Union tactical transport An-24 20-4 grounded
Antonov An-26 Curl Soviet Union tactical transport An-26 4-3 grounded
Antonov An-2 Colt Soviet Union biplane transport An-2 10
Harbin Y-12 People's Republic of China light transport Y-12 4 retired
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed Soviet Union fighter MiG-21PFM/UM 44/14-8 grounded
Mil Mi-24 Hind Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-24V 12-4 Anti-tank
Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union attack helicopter Mi-8 20 Anti-tank
Mil Mi-8 Hip Soviet Union transport helicopter Mi-8 12 Transport only/Replaced
Mil Mi-171 Hip Russia transport helicopter Mi-171 2 Transport only

Well I was in Alaska for a joint training excercise, and the Mongolians were there, with harriers. This was about 7-8 years ago.
 
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.
The 2nd amendent protects the right to own any and all smal arms.
It also covers anything 'in common use' as part of a soldier's 'ordinary equipment'.

This precludes several of the options on the list.

The poll options illustrates the OP's ignorance of the issue -- "machineguns" and "automatic rifles" are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
I can't select the option I would really like to.

In seriousness, of those on the list, I only think handguns should be allowed, or in other words, about what is legal now.
You know that 'automatic rifles' and 'machineguns' are legal now -- yes?
 
Well I was in Alaska for a joint training excercise, and the Mongolians were there, with harriers. This was about 7-8 years ago.

I think you confused Mongolia with UK ;)
 
Also, the subject line is misleading.

It should ask 'what weapons do Americans have a right to own' or somesuch -- "limits to private arseals" speaks more to how MANY weapons we should be allowed to have.

The answer to THAT question?
As many as we want.
 
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.

But even a poor person can make bio-weapons with very little effort.

All you need is a little knowledge of biology (a microbiology course at a junior college along with some books is more than enough) and some cheap equipment to do it, all of which is legally and readily available to the mass public.

I think the development and possession of such weaponized biological agents should be illegal, not because I think that banning such would prevent those hellbent on making them form doing so, but because if they were readily usable by the public at large, the potential for an inadvertent deployment of these bio-weapons would increase.

And since these are not the types of weapons that are discriminatory (don't just affect the target) I don't feel they should be legally accesable to the general public.



P.S. I'm not saying I could develop ebola in my basement, but I'd have little to no problem developing anthrax or Botulinum toxin if that were my goal.
 
But even a poor person can make bio-weapons with very little effort.

All you need is a little knowledge of biology (a microbiology course at a junior college along with some books is more than enough) and some cheap equipment to do it, all of which is legally and readily available to the mass public.
Hmmm...
The rabid anti-gunners will argue that we should not just ban guns, but, since anyone with minimal machining skills and a simple set of machine tools can make one, things that will allow us to make guns shoud be banned as well.

GIven what you said here, I wonder how much longer we'll be able to legally possess a toaster oven...?
 
Hmmm...
The rabid anti-gunners will argue that we should not just ban guns, but, since anyone with minimal machining skills and a simple set of machine tools can make one, things that will allow us to make guns shoud be banned as well.

GIven what you said here, I wonder how much longer we'll be able to legally possess a toaster oven...?

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:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_Anthrax_leak]Sverdlovsk anthrax leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

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.
 
Last edited:
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 :lol:
 
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 :lol:

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom