• 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
Voidwar said:
On his own property, that is his liberty.

Here's what I think is worse:

Jackbooted thugs attacking him to disarm him.
Click to expand...

In this case I agree, but it did not stop it from happening which was my point. Same with Waco.
 
Jerry said:
I believe a type 3 is for collectors.

A type type 7 is required to manufacture explosives.
Click to expand...

You are correct it is the type 7.
 
Blackdog said:
The ATF if you look at modern case law.
Click to expand...

All Law is trumped by the Constitution. Brush up on your Civics.

Blackdog said:
You have to get a Class 3 Federal License.
Click to expand...

And If I don't ?

Blackdog said:
Plenty and it makes no difference in response to your asinine question.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bring up Ruby Ridge ? Your reference has it backwards, the ATF assassins were victorious on Ruby Ridge. After failing to entrap the man, they shot his dog and son and wife to death.
 
Jerry said:
IMO missiles, explosives, etc, are completely out of the question.
Click to expand...

I don't see them as out of the question depending on who, what and where. I think with proper licensing and government over site I would be OK with it.
 
Voidwar said:
All Law is trumped by the Constitution. Brush up on your Civics.
Click to expand...

You mite want to brush up on reality in the US.

Voidwar said:
And If I don't ?
Click to expand...

You would go to prison or get killed during the arrest depending on your actions.

Voidwar said:
Then why did you bring up Ruby Ridge ?
Click to expand...

It is a perfect example of how a piece of paper no matter how much I agree with it can not protect you from the government, period.

Voidwar said:
Your reference has it backwards, the ATF assassins were victorious on Ruby Ridge. After failing to entrap the man, they shot his dog and son and wife to death.
Click to expand...

And no punishment happened to the offenders, same with Waco. So who was the real victor in those incidents?
 
Blackdog said:
I don't see them as out of the question depending on who, what and where. I think with proper licensing and government over site I would be OK with it.
Click to expand...

As soon as we include explosives in our concept of the 2nd Amendment and then say government licensing and oversight is acceptable, we've OK'd licensing and oversight of small arms as well, and I have a big problem with that.

I'd rather leave explosives out that have to obtain a license to practice a specifically enumerated constitutional right.
 
Blackdog said:
You mite want to brush up on reality in the US.
Click to expand...

And what is that ? Unconstitutional Collusion between Judges Legislators and their enforcement thugs ?

Blackdog said:
You would go to prison or get killed during the arrest depending on your actions.
Click to expand...

Well, just remember, If I win, I'm comin for the closest gun grabbers I can find and killing them. No reason to defeat assassins unless you are willing to go kill those who hire them.

Blackdog said:
It is a perfect example of how a piece of paper no matter how much I agree with it can not protect you from the government, period.
Click to expand...

You are correct, those agents had personal beef with Randy, he should have killed them before they managed to threaten his family. Randy should have lured and offed them the first time they tried to entrap him.

Blackdog said:
And no punishment happened to the offenders, same with Waco. So who was the real victor in those incidents?
Click to expand...

Oh I reckon someone will kill those agents sooner or later. I can say this, a few more incidents like Ruby Ridge, and the killing of ATF assassins should become much more common.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
As soon as we include explosives in our concept of the 2nd Amendment and then say government licensing and oversight is acceptable, we've OK'd licensing and oversight of small arms as well, and I have a big problem with that.

I'd rather leave explosives out that have to obtain a license to practice a specifically enumerated constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Voidwar said:
And what is that ? Unconstitutional Collusion between Judges Legislators and their enforcement thugs ?

Well, just remember, If I win, Im comin for the closest gun grabbers I can find and killing them.

You are correct, those agents had personal beef with Randy, he should have killed them before they managed to threaten his family. Randy should have lured and offed them the first time they tried to entrap him.

Oh I reckon someone will kill those agents sooner or later. I can say this, a few more incidents like Ruby Ridge, and the killing of ATF assassins should become much more common.
Click to expand...

You can drop the internet tough guy act, means nothing.

I spent years in the military and years as an LEO. Do you really think "Im comin for the closest gun grabbers I can find and killing them." means anything to me? Please, Internet gonads are as fake as porn star boobs in the 80's. :lol:
 
Voidwar said:
All Law is trumped by the Constitution. Brush up on your Civics.



And If I don't ?



Then why did you bring up Ruby Ridge ? Your reference has it backwards, the ATF assassins were victorious on Ruby Ridge. After failing to entrap the man, they shot his dog and son and wife to death.
Click to expand...
I think his wife was holding a baby, so be careful of govt babykillers.
 
Blackdog said:
So you think it would be OK for some Joe blow who knows nothing about ordinance to buy a mine, missile system or something equally ridicules?
Click to expand...

Actually yes. There are a fair number of people here who think that weapons and ignorance is not a bad combination.

Us in rational land know that average people without the experience, training and knowledge handed a weapon will likely do stupid things that will get themselves and others injured.
 
obvious Child said:
Actually yes. There are a fair number of people here who think that weapons and ignorance is not a bad combination.
Click to expand...
Another unsupportable claim.

Us in rational land know that average people without the experience, training and knowledge handed a weapon will likely do stupid things that will get themselves and others injured.
Click to expand...
Yet another unsupportable claim.

Really -- if your position is so sound, why do you need to make stuff up?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Whats the diff between "Machine guns" and "automatic rifles"?
Click to expand...
Legally? Technically?
None.
Mechanically?
Depends on the models, of course.
Practically?
"Automatic rifles" are generally fed with a box magazine; "machineguns" are usually fed with a belt.

I am still amazed how people who know so little about guns think they can create a sound argument against them.
 
Goobieman said:
Legally? Technically?
None.
Mechanically?
Depends on the models, of course.
Practically?
"Automatic rifles" are generally fed with a box magazine; "machineguns" are usually fed with a belt.

I am still amazed how people who know so little about guns think they can create a sound argument against them.
Click to expand...





:lol: it was a rhetorical question to expose the ignorance of the poll. ;)
 
Goobieman said:
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!
Click to expand...

Would you be able to report the news on T.V. without the broadcasting license? :2wave: Obviously then a broadcasting license encompasses or includes a license for reporters. This license is then supplemented with press passes and documents identifying you as a legitimate reporter. You can say you're a reporter all you want but without all these legal documents in place your 'right' to use free speech to be a reporter wouldn't go too far.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Would you be able to report the news on T.V. without the broadcasting license? :2wave:
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the queston, as previously noted.
But DO go ahead and continue to avoid the -actual- issue - no one expects anything different.
 
Hatuey said:
Would you be able to report the news on T.V. without the broadcasting license? :2wave:
Click to expand...
Yes, the station is FCC licensed and it is a broad scope one. The individual is covered under the station's license so they can individually report without an individual license in the sense of the argument, however, all lose the license if pulled by the FCC hence it is the only check and only applies to obscenity, not by provable bias or factual misrepresentation.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the queston, as previously noted.
But DO go ahead and continue to avoid the -actual- issue - no one expects anything different.
Click to expand...

:rofl - So you wouldn't be able to report the news without a broadcasting license? Hmmm.
 
Hatuey said:
:rofl - So you wouldn't be able to report the news without a broadcasting license? Hmmm.
Click to expand...
4th time:
You caught the part where it is specifically noted that the license in question is for ALL reporters, not just for boradcast, and that said license is for the persnoal exercise of a right, not the priviledged use of public property -- yes?

If so, you understand how your responses here aren't relevant, and you're simply trolling.
If not, then you need to learn how to read.
Your call.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom