Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
hope you are in favor of Gay Marriage
[/quote]
Marriage is a religious issue, not a legal issue. The law should no more distinguish a married person or persons from a baptized person or a Bar Mitzvahed person. Those are religious rites, between that person and G-d.
So, if two sodomites wish to pretend to be married, I won’t stand in their way and nor should the government. In short, I “tolerate” them.
Similarly, I should be free to ignore their abomination and not interact with them if I so choose. In short, I do not “accept” them.
It is this second point – “acceptance” – that sodomites wish to force upon other people. Such forced acceptance is contrary to a free society. Homosexual sex is abhorred in Judaism. I should not be forced to change my religious beliefs.[/quote]
Hear, Hear!
[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand …blab…blab…blab…
[/quote]
Same ol’ story. “I love guns but…”
The Second Amendment debate has nothing to do with your emotional attachment to a piece of steel.
[/quote]
“So much is wrong with his post”, and this is what you come up with?
Get ready folks, pushy is gonna take everyone to school here.[/quote]
Indeed.
[/quote]
Bring it. I’m ready to debate with you. Right here, right now. Spit your knowledge
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand …blab…blab…blab…
[/quote]
Same ol’ story. “I love guns but…”
The Second Amendment debate has nothing to do with your emotional attachment to a piece of steel.
[/quote]
“So much is wrong with his post”, and this is what you come up with?
Get ready folks, pushy is gonna take everyone to school here.[/quote]
Indeed.
[/quote]
Bring it. I’m ready to debate with you. Right here, right now. Spit your knowledge[/quote]
It has been a log time since I have seen a good smack down of Blow hard 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]
Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]
Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]
Yes. You may have a problem with the development of nuclear power, but that problem doesn’t disappear by denying some the right to possess that power.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]
Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]
Yes. You may have a problem with the development of nuclear power, but that problem doesn’t disappear by denying some the right to possess that power.[/quote]
In matters such as this, precise terminology is important. Nuclear power is nuclear energy. In light of this, do you care to clarify?
So, where do those rights come from? I assume you believe they are GOD given rights? Need this answered before I continue here
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]
Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]
Wrong answer. The US Constitution authorizes private individuals to own and operate weapons systems larger than small arms. Do you know of what I speak? Where is this found?[/quote]
I didn’t indicate that small arms were the be-all and end-all of the second amendment. I’m attempting to have you lay out your position so I can better understand it. Outside of small arms, artillery existed in the eighteenth century. Not precisely, no.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction[/quote]
In other words, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons. (CBRN)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I love guns.
I also understand …blab…blab…blab…
[/quote]
Same ol’ story. “I love guns but…”
The Second Amendment debate has nothing to do with your emotional attachment to a piece of steel.
[/quote]
“So much is wrong with his post”, and this is what you come up with?
Get ready folks, pushy is gonna take everyone to school here.[/quote]
Indeed.
[/quote]
Bring it. I’m ready to debate with you. Right here, right now. Spit your knowledge[/quote]
You may be ready but I doubt you’re able.[/quote]
I already KNEW FOR A FACT you had this belief, but I will take my chances
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction[/quote]
In other words, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons. (CBRN)[/quote]
As Pushy would say, Yup
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Well, the Weberian definition of the state is “a human community [government] which has successfully monopolized the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” If there is a good argument to be made why civilians should be able to purchase weapon systems outside of small arms provided they have the wherewithal, I would be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Have you read your US Constitution lately? It’s in there. Can you find it?[/quote]
Yes, to prevent the development of a tyrannical government. Nonetheless, the second amendment must necessarily be reexamined in the atomic age. Tactical nuclear weapons are well within the reach of the richest segment of the population. Should they be purchasable? [/quote]
Yes. You may have a problem with the development of nuclear power, but that problem doesn’t disappear by denying some the right to possess that power.[/quote]
In matters such as this, precise terminology is important. Nuclear power is nuclear energy. In light of this, do you care to clarify?[/quote]
Is nuclear weaponry not the result of harnessing that?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
When I said Weapons of Mass Destruction, I was referring to the Weapons of Mass Destruction[/quote]
In other words, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear weapons. (CBRN)[/quote]
And I don’t want to get into things like Europeans bringing biological weapons with them to the New World in the form of bacteria that the indigenous people had not developed an immunity to or anything along those lines. When referring to biological weapons I am talking about taking an agent and incorporating it into a weapon that can be targeted onto people