Political Crossfire Forums

[micfranklin]

leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass descruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

WMDs by design are not defensive weapons.

More like destructive weapons, hence the name weapons of mass destruction :1evil:

[lilwolf]

Bingo................. :clap:


Leftneckredwing said:
WMDs by design are not defensive weapons


It gets no clearer than that

[RyzinEnagy]

britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

Do you realize how much planning it takes to execute a nerve gas attack?

[britboy]

RyzinEnagy wrote: britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

Do you realize how much planning it takes to execute a nerve gas attack?

Nope, tell me, how much planning does it take?

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass destruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

Very good! You get a gold star! Now tell us how, because lilwolf believes WMDs should be restricted (Or, as might be the case (At least with me.), nonexistent.) how he supports the tenants of gun control!

Also, you have yet to prove that chemical weapons actually produce the apocalyptic effects that you seem to believe they do. I'm still waiting for evidence that they're SOOOOOOOOOO much more deadly than conventional weaponry.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

Where is my gold star? :( You could at least do me a bitmap of one??

Lilwolf can't even decide which weapons should be legal and which ones shouldn't if he made the rules (ask him if you don't believe me!) so the only place left to go with him was asking his general principles. I was pleasently suprised that he isn't part of the 'all weapons available to everyone' brigade. NOw all he has to do is form some kind of vague opinion on what weapons should be allowed, and we could really start debating.

ps I haven't forgotton about that gold star. Could you make it an animated jpeg that spins or something please?

[lilwolf]

britboy, there are limits to common sense and ignorance when it comes to weapons and guns. Military hardware for the most part is what it is. There are needed restrictions upon certain aspects of weaponry that is geared and designed for war.

With reference to WMD's and such there is a great deal involved from what I've read on design and manufacturing of nerve agents and chemical weapons and it is better left to the experts. I am no chemist but the overall procedures for safety are pretty involved.

I have decided which weapons should be legal. That is the common sense issue i was refering to. If you want to have a 30 mm chain gun like the one pictured you have to be licensed to own it because it is military hardware. The ammo is another thing in that it costs about 25 bucks per round and unless you got tons of bucks to waste you are going to spend about $60,000.00 per minute.

I have no problem with making legal just about any civilian weapon and versions thereof, but not all military hardware.



For that matter britboy i would not care if you owned one of these either

[leftneckredwing]

That's what I want for my pickup. :lol:

[lilwolf]

leftneckredwing wrote:

That's what I want for my pickup. :lol:


I bet one could be got on the black market? Now i would like to have that on my pick up as well. I rather doubt that anyone would take my parking spot at the office anymore. :lol: :lol:

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass destruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

Very good! You get a gold star! Now tell us how, because lilwolf believes WMDs should be restricted (Or, as might be the case (At least with me.), nonexistent.) how he supports the tenants of gun control!

Also, you have yet to prove that chemical weapons actually produce the apocalyptic effects that you seem to believe they do. I'm still waiting for evidence that they're SOOOOOOOOOO much more deadly than conventional weaponry.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

Where is my gold star? :( You could at least do me a bitmap of one??

Lilwolf can't even decide which weapons should be legal and which ones shouldn't if he made the rules (ask him if you don't believe me!) so the only place left to go with him was asking his general principles. I was pleasently suprised that he isn't part of the 'all weapons available to everyone' brigade. NOw all he has to do is form some kind of vague opinion on what weapons should be allowed, and we could really start debating.

ps I haven't forgotton about that gold star. Could you make it an animated jpeg that spins or something please?

Did you read my post on the actualities of the Saddam's "gas attack"?

Saddam used artillery to shell the city for two days before he actually utilized chemical agents. When he DID start using chemical agents, he dropped them for two day straight using eight separate aircraft, and then finished off the slaughter with a conventional ground force.

He didn't use a small amount of nerve agents by any means... in fact, he used quite a large amount of chemical weapons. Using the Halabja gassing to validate the claim that relatively small amounts of chemical weapons can kill massive amounts of people is ridiculous.

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass destruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

Very good! You get a gold star! Now tell us how, because lilwolf believes WMDs should be restricted (Or, as might be the case (At least with me.), nonexistent.) how he supports the tenants of gun control!

Also, you have yet to prove that chemical weapons actually produce the apocalyptic effects that you seem to believe they do. I'm still waiting for evidence that they're SOOOOOOOOOO much more deadly than conventional weaponry.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

Where is my gold star? :( You could at least do me a bitmap of one??

Lilwolf can't even decide which weapons should be legal and which ones shouldn't if he made the rules (ask him if you don't believe me!) so the only place left to go with him was asking his general principles. I was pleasently suprised that he isn't part of the 'all weapons available to everyone' brigade. NOw all he has to do is form some kind of vague opinion on what weapons should be allowed, and we could really start debating.

ps I haven't forgotton about that gold star. Could you make it an animated jpeg that spins or something please?

Did you read my post on the actualities of the Saddam's "gas attack"?

Saddam used artillery to shell the city for two days before he actually utilized chemical agents. When he DID start using chemical agents, he dropped them for two day straight using eight separate aircraft, and then finished off the slaughter with a conventional ground force.

He didn't use a small amount of nerve agents by any means... in fact, he used quite a large amount of chemical weapons. Using the Halabja gassing to validate the claim that relatively small amounts of chemical weapons can kill massive amounts of people is ridiculous.

I'm not going to believe a word you say until I at least get the gold star you promised.

Otherwise who is saying what else you may go back on.

Sorry Airo -- unti then ...

[leftneckredwing]

lilwolf wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:

That's what I want for my pickup. :lol:


I bet one could be got on the black market? Now i would like to have that on my pick up as well. I rather doubt that anyone would take my parking spot at the office anymore. :lol: :lol:

You would never get cut off in traffic. :lol:

[lilwolf]

leftneckredwing wrote: lilwolf wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:

That's what I want for my pickup. :lol:


I bet one could be got on the black market? Now i would like to have that on my pick up as well. I rather doubt that anyone would take my parking spot at the office anymore. :lol: :lol:

You would never get cut off in traffic. :lol:


Not likely and might even end the rush hour road rage crap. I saw what they can do in an incident in the first gulf. totally awesome and highly efficient. You do not want to be on the recieving end of this little toy.
I figured I would offer britboy the large AK cause he wanted to know what guns he could have. But theu far he has not accepted the AK. That thing is out by one of Saddams old pallaces. There was also a large Iraqi soldier statue near it but a bradley took care of that.

[bigstick61]

I'm quite certain you could legally get one of those in the US, as it is a destructive device, and there is no prohibition on registering new ones for civilian transfers. It would probably cost alot of money though, even if there was no NFA, GCA, etc.

[criticalstriker]

Hey, i have seen a few people ask "how would nerve gas be more lethal than guns". Im not an expert but if you had say 15 canisters of nerve agents (lets just say you got a hold of them) now if you were smart you would split that nerve gas up (with out killing your self -.-) into smaller time released ones. After that in the night you break into schools, library's any where with large gatherings of people. you set the first timer to go off at around 2:00 pm (prime time for most places i believe if not then set if for that time) then the next timer would go off at 2:30 pm then 3:00 pm so that the police and evac groups don't have time to respond as they are rushing to one another goes off causing what i would assume to be large scale death (depending on winds etc.) Any way like i said I'm not an expert (and i would hate to be one).

[airo]

criticalstriker wrote: Hey, i have seen a few people ask "how would nerve gas be more lethal than guns". Im not an expert but if you had say 15 canisters of nerve agents (lets just say you got a hold of them) now if you were smart you would split that nerve gas up (with out killing your self -.-) into smaller time released ones. After that in the night you break into schools, library's any where with large gatherings of people. you set the first timer to go off at around 2:00 pm (prime time for most places i believe if not then set if for that time) then the next timer would go off at 2:30 pm then 3:00 pm so that the police and evac groups don't have time to respond as they are rushing to one another goes off causing what i would assume to be large scale death (depending on winds etc.) Any way like i said I'm not an expert (and i would hate to be one).

But that's just the thing... If you're using 15 canisters of nerve agent, you've got to use an equal volume of an explosive conventional weapon to balance out the comparison.

15 canisters of something like C4 is a A LOT of explosives.

[leftneckredwing]

bigstick61 wrote: I'm quite certain you could legally get one of those in the US, as it is a destructive device, and there is no prohibition on registering new ones for civilian transfers. It would probably cost alot of money though, even if there was no NFA, GCA, etc.

I wasn't serious. I don't want one. It was a bit of humor. It would probably cost more than I would ever be willing to pay. And I can't honestly think of any use for such a thing that I would ever have. A rifle will do me just fine.

[lilwolf]

leftneckredwing wrote: bigstick61 wrote: I'm quite certain you could legally get one of those in the US, as it is a destructive device, and there is no prohibition on registering new ones for civilian transfers. It would probably cost alot of money though, even if there was no NFA, GCA, etc.

I wasn't serious. I don't want one. It was a bit of humor. It would probably cost more than I would ever be willing to pay. And I can't honestly think of any use for such a thing that I would ever have. A rifle will do me just fine.


They run according to the army about 275,000 per weapon. That on the armys cost. Maint. runs about 30,000 a year for worn out parts. Ammo is crazy as far as price.
Simply not cost effective for the avg. guy. But it does look like fun for a little while till your broke. :lol: I would not want one either

[deuceman]

:!?: Criminals, what is the definition of a criminal: one whom breaks or disregards laws. So this is a no brainer. If we make it illegal to possess firearms, the criminal will disregard that law just like all the rest.l The major result of banning firearms, would be to give the criminals the advantage. What do you think keeps the gang-bangers and hardened criminals from kicking in your front door and taking everything you have, raping your wives and daughters and beating or killing you? The knowledge that you might have a gun and blow them right back out the door is what. If they knew that law abiding citizens would not have guns, we would be defenseless. Also, a citizenry with guns keeps the government in line. The first thing Hitler did when assuming power was to take away the guns. I'll agree that there are way too many gun deaths in this country, but taking the guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. It's been proven in small communities where it is the law that every household must posses a gun, that crime goes down. People need to be responsible with their firearms and prevent children and unstable people from getting hold of them, but give them up-never!

[britboy]

deuceman wrote: :!?: Criminals, what is the definition of a criminal: one whom breaks or disregards laws. So this is a no brainer. If we make it illegal to possess firearms, the criminal will disregard that law just like all the rest.l The major result of banning firearms, would be to give the criminals the advantage. What do you think keeps the gang-bangers and hardened criminals from kicking in your front door and taking everything you have, raping your wives and daughters and beating or killing you? The knowledge that you might have a gun and blow them right back out the door is what. If they knew that law abiding citizens would not have guns, we would be defenseless. Also, a citizenry with guns keeps the government in line. The first thing Hitler did when assuming power was to take away the guns. I'll agree that there are way too many gun deaths in this country, but taking the guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. It's been proven in small communities where it is the law that every household must posses a gun, that crime goes down. People need to be responsible with their firearms and prevent children and unstable people from getting hold of them, but give them up-never!

no new arguments here, just plenty of disproven once. I suggest you buy the all new audio tape 'Lilwolf vs Lucky Luke' or it's follow-up 'OK I typoed when entering the stat' for the greatest hits ...

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: deuceman wrote: :!?: Criminals, what is the definition of a criminal: one whom breaks or disregards laws. So this is a no brainer. If we make it illegal to possess firearms, the criminal will disregard that law just like all the rest.l The major result of banning firearms, would be to give the criminals the advantage. What do you think keeps the gang-bangers and hardened criminals from kicking in your front door and taking everything you have, raping your wives and daughters and beating or killing you? The knowledge that you might have a gun and blow them right back out the door is what. If they knew that law abiding citizens would not have guns, we would be defenseless. Also, a citizenry with guns keeps the government in line. The first thing Hitler did when assuming power was to take away the guns. I'll agree that there are way too many gun deaths in this country, but taking the guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. It's been proven in small communities where it is the law that every household must posses a gun, that crime goes down. People need to be responsible with their firearms and prevent children and unstable people from getting hold of them, but give them up-never!

no new arguments here, just plenty of disproven once. I suggest you buy the all new audio tape 'Lilwolf vs Lucky Luke' or it's follow-up 'OK I typoed when entering the stat' for the greatest hits ...


Actually it would be rather boring...... :lol: