- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 8,211
- Reaction score
- 4,179
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Hell even Mongolia has Harriers.
Those babies are obsolete.
Hell even Mongolia has Harriers.
Those babies are obsolete.
Hell even Mongolia has Harriers.
Some would argue there's not much difference between the two....or when I'm serious. Go figure.I can't tell if you're joking. Or if you've gone insane.
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.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.
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.You failed to provide a rational argument.
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.
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.
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.
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
The 2nd amendent protects the right to own any and all smal arms.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.
You know that 'automatic rifles' and 'machineguns' are legal now -- yes?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.
Well I was in Alaska for a joint training excercise, and the Mongolians were there, with harriers. This was about 7-8 years ago.
Hmmm...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...?
This is not -necessarily- the case.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 also not -necessarily- the case.Also, any incompetence of the builder while making a gun at home cannot lead to massive death tolls of those in the surrounding area.
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: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.
This is not -necessarily- the case.
I can inject you with a biotoxin, killing you and no one else.
This is also not -necessarily- the case.
I can build several thousand simple guns,all with the same flaw, killing several thousand people.
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:
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?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.
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.
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.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.