User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 7:57:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because somebody owned it back then does not create a right to keep and bear it. Indeed, you just said that they got a license from Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Simple question about how far you think "shall not be infringed" should extend. Should the average joe who has the cash be able to buy a Stinger or SA-7 as easily as a pistol or AR? Pass a simple background check, or should there even be that? (this is assuming that manufacturers/importers would have no qualms selling them over the counter). Yes or no? Arms vs ordnance No. No such distinction in the Constitution. back then you could own a fully armed ship-of-the-line, complete with cannon, rounds, and powder, and even get a license form Congress to go privateering with it. The only limit on what you can purchase and own should be your wallet. Just because somebody owned it back then does not create a right to keep and bear it. Indeed, you just said that they got a license from Congress. A license to go privateering not for the guns or boat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 7:58:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which part of the Constitution grants the government the authority to ban the possession of certain guns but not others? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you're asking me what I think is constitutional, basic light infantry weapons should be available to everyone, and the state should provide special weapons (grenadiers, light machine guns, medium machine guns, rockets, mortars, manpads, etc) to groups designated and trained as fire support teams or weapon squads. If you're asking me what I want, the answer is all of it. Which part of the Constitution grants the government the authority to ban the possession of certain guns but not others? The federal government has exclusive control of foreign policy, so weapons that only have foreign policy components seem to lie in the realm of federal control... That said, such would mostly be WMD's, and a handful of other things. Depending on your view of the word "arms", that may or may not include "Cannon", which more or less translates into "crew served weapons". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:13:20 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm not sure why some of you guys are so hell bent on regulations because of what ifs. You realize that anyone could buy a semi and drive it down the sidewalks in NYC and kill hundreds or thousands? Why aren't we talking about banning vehicles? What about gasoline? Fertilizer? Tanerite? The truth is that there are tons of deadly devices that can be legally purchased and used for deadly purposes and yet we still manage to survive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:18:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want a nuke. Same here, they'll come in handy for asteroid mining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:22:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Were not some of the cannons used by the colonials in the RW privately owned? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is there a right to bear ordnance? We had the right to artillery for quite some time Were not some of the cannons used by the colonials in the RW privately owned? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This clearly shows the intent of our founders |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:22:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure why some of you guys are so hell bent on regulations because of what ifs. You realize that anyone could buy a semi and drive it down the sidewalks in NYC and kill hundreds or thousands? Why aren't we talking about banning vehicles? What about gasoline? Fertilizer? Tanerite? The truth is that there are tons of deadly devices that can be legally purchased and used for deadly purposes and yet we still manage to survive. Can you think of any as destructive as a SM-65 ICBM? In the hands of say, a Soros/ Bloomberg who could afford it and if he get frustrated enough at someone/thing employ it to the terms of pick a city and entire areas destruction? You could drive a semi and kill hundreds, sure. You could employ an ICBM and kill millions and alter the dynamics of the entire world. Color me worried that one well off person should have that type of power. Granted, it's scary even in terms of a government having it, much less 1 man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:26:26 PM EDT
[#7]
A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:29:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:31:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm well aware of the requirements, I was a nuke tech in the USAF. It is the logical conclusion, though. Where does the 2A begin, and where it does it end? It's an important discussion IMO. It's pretty simple IMHO. It begins and ends with the citizens having access to the same weapons as the government may use against them. So the government is going to fire MANPADS at civilian airliners? Launch nukes against rioters? Strafe Donald Trump rallys with a squadron of A-10's. Absurdity... meet absurdity. Just like the British never used canons, artillery, and naval gunfire against its colonists? 
Or rockets http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/images/13.gif Goodbye eyebrows! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:34:12 PM EDT
[#10]
I think the question is not "should civilians be able to own x type of weapon or arm". The question should be "can the government restrict the 2A without using an amendment"?
I say hell no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:35:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the question is not "should civilians be able to own x type of weapon or arm". The question should be "can the government restrict the 2A without using an amendment"? I say hell no. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:38:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How'd you get so eloquent. That's a very concise way of explaining things. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't seem reasonable that weapons which allow an individual to unilaterally hold hostage or directly affect national and foreign policy, or major portions of the economic apparatus, thus controverting the will of the people expressed through Constitutional processes, would be subject to strict scrutiny with regard to unfettered private ownership. Not even the military or government allows individual access to, or operation of, such weapons. How'd you get so eloquent. That's a very concise way of explaining things. You scored a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of 27.8, yet I bet we all understood it. Very well said. My only recommendation would be to replace "reasonable" with "unreasonable," which I believe more accurately reflects your intent. Changing it to unreasonable also upgrades the F-K (heh) grade level to 28.1. Win win! And MANPADS for everyone. If I could afford to buy 10,000 acres of Nevada desert and arty to make explosions whenever I felt like it, I would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:39:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you think of any as destructive as a SM-65 ICBM? In the hands of say, a Soros/ Bloomberg who could afford it and if he get frustrated enough at someone/thing employ it to the terms of pick a city and entire areas destruction? You could drive a semi and kill hundreds, sure. You could employ an ICBM and kill millions and alter the dynamics of the entire world. Color me worried that one well off person should have that type of power. Granted, it's scary even in terms of a government having it, much less 1 man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure why some of you guys are so hell bent on regulations because of what ifs. You realize that anyone could buy a semi and drive it down the sidewalks in NYC and kill hundreds or thousands? Why aren't we talking about banning vehicles? What about gasoline? Fertilizer? Tanerite? The truth is that there are tons of deadly devices that can be legally purchased and used for deadly purposes and yet we still manage to survive. Can you think of any as destructive as a SM-65 ICBM? In the hands of say, a Soros/ Bloomberg who could afford it and if he get frustrated enough at someone/thing employ it to the terms of pick a city and entire areas destruction? You could drive a semi and kill hundreds, sure. You could employ an ICBM and kill millions and alter the dynamics of the entire world. Color me worried that one well off person should have that type of power. Granted, it's scary even in terms of a government having it, much less 1 man. And what exactly would the reaction be to that? You act like 1) mass murder is legal and 2) there are no repercussions for mass murder Again, what is the difference between hundreds, thousands or millions. Illegal is illegal. Murder is murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:41:13 PM EDT
[#14]
I want to hunt a flock of Canadian geese with one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:43:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:43:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what exactly would the reaction be to that? You act like 1) mass murder is legal and 2) there are no repercussions for mass murder Again, what is the difference between hundreds, thousands or millions. Illegal is illegal. Murder is murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure why some of you guys are so hell bent on regulations because of what ifs. You realize that anyone could buy a semi and drive it down the sidewalks in NYC and kill hundreds or thousands? Why aren't we talking about banning vehicles? What about gasoline? Fertilizer? Tanerite? The truth is that there are tons of deadly devices that can be legally purchased and used for deadly purposes and yet we still manage to survive. Can you think of any as destructive as a SM-65 ICBM? In the hands of say, a Soros/ Bloomberg who could afford it and if he get frustrated enough at someone/thing employ it to the terms of pick a city and entire areas destruction? You could drive a semi and kill hundreds, sure. You could employ an ICBM and kill millions and alter the dynamics of the entire world. Color me worried that one well off person should have that type of power. Granted, it's scary even in terms of a government having it, much less 1 man. And what exactly would the reaction be to that? You act like 1) mass murder is legal and 2) there are no repercussions for mass murder Again, what is the difference between hundreds, thousands or millions. Illegal is illegal. Murder is murder. The difference being ability. Don't get me wrong, I see the other side, I'm just not certain i'm there yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:45:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the premier piece of military materiel at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That asset which, if it was in play on one side of the battlefield and not the other, spelled certain victory for the side which had them. That equipment which was so astonishingly effective that it was built in as large of numbers as economically possible by every nation in the world. Was that asset, and its supporting equipment, generally privately owned? Enough that you could say it was in "common use" (e.g. Heller)? If that asset was privately owned, was it called upon by the government to perform military service in a time of war? Think hard. I'll give you the answer if you need. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're asking me what I think is constitutional, basic light infantry weapons should be available to everyone, and the state should provide special weapons (grenadiers, light machine guns, medium machine guns, rockets, mortars, manpads, etc) to groups designated and trained as fire support teams or weapon squads. If you're asking me what I want, the answer is all of it. Best answer, though I think light machine guns should be part of the basic light infantry weapons category for that. You've got the tank and I don't, however. What was the premier piece of military materiel at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That asset which, if it was in play on one side of the battlefield and not the other, spelled certain victory for the side which had them. That equipment which was so astonishingly effective that it was built in as large of numbers as economically possible by every nation in the world. Was that asset, and its supporting equipment, generally privately owned? Enough that you could say it was in "common use" (e.g. Heller)? If that asset was privately owned, was it called upon by the government to perform military service in a time of war? Think hard. I'll give you the answer if you need. Cannon and yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:48:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You scored a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of 27.8, yet I bet we all understood it. Very well said. My only recommendation would be to replace "reasonable" with "unreasonable," which I believe more accurately reflects your intent. Changing it to unreasonable also upgrades the F-K (heh) grade level to 28.1. Win win! And MANPADS for everyone. If I could afford to buy 10,000 acres of Nevada desert and arty to make explosions whenever I felt like it, I would. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't seem reasonable that weapons which allow an individual to unilaterally hold hostage or directly affect national and foreign policy, or major portions of the economic apparatus, thus controverting the will of the people expressed through Constitutional processes, would be subject to strict scrutiny with regard to unfettered private ownership. Not even the military or government allows individual access to, or operation of, such weapons. How'd you get so eloquent. That's a very concise way of explaining things. You scored a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of 27.8, yet I bet we all understood it. Very well said. My only recommendation would be to replace "reasonable" with "unreasonable," which I believe more accurately reflects your intent. Changing it to unreasonable also upgrades the F-K (heh) grade level to 28.1. Win win! And MANPADS for everyone. If I could afford to buy 10,000 acres of Nevada desert and arty to make explosions whenever I felt like it, I would. "It doesn't seem reasonable that weapons...would be subject to strict scrutiny with regard to unfettered private ownership." No, pretty much what I meant. I don't support the MAMPADS, nuke of CBRN angle to the 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:48:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it's wasnt logistically possible to do more dmg on 9/11. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord. Not with a wheeled vehicle, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:51:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Honestly, do you know how much those things cost without the government's massive bulk discount?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:57:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, do you know how much those things cost without the government's massive bulk discount? That's not the point and besides, they'd get cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:58:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not with a wheeled vehicle, no. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord. Not with a wheeled vehicle, no. 4 planes. Take 4 semis loaded with gas and fertilizer. Yeah. You'd do more very easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 8:59:57 PM EDT
[#23]
So is the basic argument:
As it is written the 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. This is supported in Heller (2008). Any arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Arms. In the context of the 2nd amendment, arms are arms. This means weapons. I don’t think it’s debatable to argue either: 1-We have to go by the context of the time 2-We have to define arms for this generation 1/ We don’t go by the context of the time because if we did that, our interpretation of the 1st amendment would be flawed. At the founders time the 1st amendment did not include email, WWW, texting, etc. but we apply “free speech” to cover all this things because we have interpreted “free speech’ to be speech regardless of the medium. Why would not interpret arms in the same light? Arms = weapons. Independent of time frame. 2/ We don’t define speech for this generation, so why would define arms? We have accepted speech to mean speech. Supporting documents from the time clearly indicate the founders perceived the 2nd amendment not as a hunting or sporting provision, but as a means to check the government by the hands of the people. That about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:15:59 PM EDT
[#24]
“Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of the American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. – Tench Coxe
Our founders knew.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:22:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
4 planes. Take 4 semis loaded with gas and fertilizer. Yeah. You'd do more very easily. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A bunch of hijackers barely managed to kill 3k folks with four big airliners and a couple of huge buildings toppled, but a dude in a tractor-trailer could kill hundreds, if not thousands? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Good lord. Not with a wheeled vehicle, no. 4 planes. Take 4 semis loaded with gas and fertilizer. Yeah. You'd do more very easily. Our experience overseas tells me otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:37:46 PM EDT
[#26]
What would those old guys of 1789 say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:45:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would those old guys of 1789 say? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:50:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a fallacy that government is somehow inherently more trustworthy than the people it is comprised of. I trust the govt with nukes more than a stadium full of potheads |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:52:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I trust the govt with nukes more than a stadium full of potheads Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a fallacy that government is somehow inherently more trustworthy than the people it is comprised of. I trust the govt with nukes more than a stadium full of potheads Where is the .gov derived from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 9:59:20 PM EDT
[#30]
rictus is making powerful points here. one of the troubling things that comes to mind is the concept of self-defense against certain kinds of arms. by bearing a rifle or pistol, i am ipso facto in a position to defend myself against attack from someone bearing similar arms. a bad guy might win the gunfight (i'm not terrible proficient), but at least I have a say in the matter.
so there you are in business class, on final approach to NYC. as you look out your window, you see an SA-6 arching up from a mosque on the flightpath (because limiting it to MANPADS is arbitrary). you can't defend yourself against that by having your own SAMs, and all the SA in the world isn't going to help you, the passenger. so in essence, equal armament gives you no say in the matter. i suppose one could argue that flying is a choice, and if you take a flight and die, it's your own fault. but on a broad scale, the country is built around air travel, and any flight, anywhere could be shot down, because anyone could own SAMs with no oversight or regulation at all. in this way, SAMs (or nuclear) are a lot different than a bad guy with a DMR, because even if he's hiding, i can wear armor if i'm really that worried about it. if self-defense is an issue, then the ability to respond to threats symmetrically seems to be important. i am not outgunned by the bad guys, who have (at least to some degree) a limited scope of action. but in the case of SAMS, nuclear, or chemical, it's difficult to shoot back even if i have similar armament. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 10:12:11 PM EDT
[#31]
If you have the cash and brain power required to build and use a MANPADS, I 100% support your right to do so. I say build, because no company would sell these types of weapons directly to Joe Blow for the obvious liability reasons. If an individual took the time to build/smuggle/steal the weapon system, they were going to cause harm even if the weapon was illegal.
I'm not allowed to wheel a 500 pound bomb out of the LGS? That's fine, I'll just buy 500 pounds of ammonium nitrate and drive my box truck under a federal building in OKC. I'm not allowed to own a SAM? That's fine, I'll just round up a few friends and sneak some box cutters on a plane. Evil will find a way, regardless of how the 2nd amendment is interpreted. The world would be no worse for wear in the long run with every FUDD having a Javelin stashed in the attic. The few bad apples would cause some destruction, but you and I would just show it off to our friends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 10:20:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arms vs ordnance Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Simple question about how far you think "shall not be infringed" should extend. Should the average joe who has the cash be able to buy a Stinger or SA-7 as easily as a pistol or AR? Pass a simple background check, or should there even be that? (this is assuming that manufacturers/importers would have no qualms selling them over the counter). Yes or no? Arms vs ordnance The first cannon used in the Revolutionary War were privately owned, What now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 10:45:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Cost of a stinger, minus training, is $38,000 wholesale to the .gov. Figure around $60,000 for Joe Sixpack.
Could Joe do more or less the same harm using that $60,000 with minimal work and do other people willing to blow $60k on a dangerous toy that goes boom use them to harm others? No on both parts.. People generally don't blow that much money to harm others on a whim and that much money buys a lot of other items that are easily found and can harm others. Generally people willing to blow over the average gross income in the US are law abiding folks. It's like the nuclear weapon. You aren't buying them at walmart. So your going to need to source the material, make a reactor that runs, staff it, build a centerfuge, purify the results, then build the deliver system and trigger all while having no where in the world to even check if it worked. These are silly thought exercises. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 11:10:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cost of a stinger, minus training, is $38,000 wholesale to the .gov. Figure around $60,000 for Joe Sixpack. Could Joe do more or less the same harm using that $60,000 with minimal work and do other people willing to blow $60k on a dangerous toy that goes boom use them to harm others? No on both parts.. People generally don't blow that much money to harm others on a whim and that much money buys a lot of other items that are easily found and can harm others. Generally people willing to blow over the average gross income in the US are law abiding folks. It's like the nuclear weapon. You aren't buying them at walmart. So your going to need to source the material, make a reactor that runs, staff it, build a centerfuge, purify the results, then build the deliver system and trigger all while having no where in the world to even check if it worked. These are silly thought exercises. Agreed. But people are still either failing to acknowledge or dodging, because they don't like the obvious answer, the real issue of restricting the 2A without an amendment. Let us say for a minute that we all agree that Nukes and maybe even MANPADS shouldn't be owned by the civilian population. So, does the .GOV have the power to bypass the amendment process to restrict and infringe upon the civilians ability to keep and bear these arms? I say no. If they think it is in the public's best interest to outlaw these items then there must be an amendment proposed to do so, and I believe our founders new this would occur and that is why we have the amendment process. The Constitution is not a living document in the sense that its meaning changes over time. It is a living document because we can use the amendment process to adjust to modern technology and the will of the people as we progress. Are you so called friends of the 2A gonna answer this or dodge it like you have been doing for the last 5 pages? We're waiting.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 11:14:42 PM EDT
[#35]
This thread outs both what some would call crazy gun lunatics and closet anti-gunners. All modern arms and explosives should be available to everyone, if someone wants to blow me and my family out of the sky so be it, that is the cost of freedom. No different than the assholes that have gone on mass shooting sprees using modern rifles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 11:27:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread outs both what some would call crazy gun lunatics and closet anti-gunners. All modern arms and explosives should be available to everyone, if someone wants to blow me and my family out of the sky so be it, that is the cost of freedom. No different than the assholes that have gone on mass shooting sprees using modern rifles. So no nukes? Ban them the right way with a constitutional amendment or bypass the process and infringe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 11:30:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Simple question about how far you think "shall not be infringed" should extend. I've heard some people here make this claim before. Should the average Joe who has the cash be able to buy a Stinger or SA-7 as easily as a pistol or AR? Pass a simple background check, or should there even be that? (this is assuming that manufacturers/importers would have no qualms selling them over the counter). Yes or no? Hell yeah. Same with weaponized biological agents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/9/2016 11:56:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I can afford it, should I be allowed to circle Dallas in a B-52 with a full bomb load? Only if you drop a few on the Fair Park neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:02:11 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
rictus is making powerful points here. one of the troubling things that comes to mind is the concept of self-defense against certain kinds of arms. by bearing a rifle or pistol, i am ipso facto in a position to defend myself against attack from someone bearing similar arms. a bad guy might win the gunfight (i'm not terrible proficient), but at least I have a say in the matter. so there you are in business class, on final approach to NYC. as you look out your window, you see an SA-6 arching up from a mosque on the flightpath (because limiting it to MANPADS is arbitrary). you can't defend yourself against that by having your own SAMs, and all the SA in the world isn't going to help you, the passenger. so in essence, equal armament gives you no say in the matter. i suppose one could argue that flying is a choice, and if you take a flight and die, it's your own fault. but on a broad scale, the country is built around air travel, and any flight, anywhere could be shot down, because anyone could own SAMs with no oversight or regulation at all. in this way, SAMs (or nuclear) are a lot different than a bad guy with a DMR, because even if he's hiding, i can wear armor if i'm really that worried about it. if self-defense is an issue, then the ability to respond to threats symmetrically seems to be important. i am not outgunned by the bad guys, who have (at least to some degree) a limited scope of action. but in the case of SAMS, nuclear, or chemical, it's difficult to shoot back even if i have similar armament. If a group of supremacists got a penchant for making kill dozers and attacks were common, would the people not have appropriate need of readily available anti-tank weaponry? If unmanned suicide drone attacks were a thing, wouldn't the people have a reasonable need for access to anti-aircraft weaponry? The scenarios for considering such extreme weapons are usually equally extreme to the point of being ridiculous, but I think the prior cases point to a need for a principle that recognizes the need for the right to keep and bear arms to scale as needed to ensure protection from violence however it may manifest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:05:12 AM EDT
[#40]
224+ anti second amendment fucks so far.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:13:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cost of a stinger, minus training, is $38,000 wholesale to the .gov. Figure around $60,000 for Joe Sixpack. Could Joe do more or less the same harm using that $60,000 with minimal work and do other people willing to blow $60k on a dangerous toy that goes boom use them to harm others? No on both parts.. People generally don't blow that much money to harm others on a whim and that much money buys a lot of other items that are easily found and can harm others. Generally people willing to blow over the average gross income in the US are law abiding folks. It's like the nuclear weapon. You aren't buying them at walmart. So your going to need to source the material, make a reactor that runs, staff it, build a centerfuge, purify the results, then build the deliver system and trigger all while having no where in the world to even check if it worked. These are silly thought exercises. Somebody could buy a post sample mg and cause untold amounts of destruction in any number of situations, yet it doesn't happen. Seems like hysterics can get people to let infringements slide. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:33:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
224+ anti second amendment fucks so far. I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:48:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 224+ anti second amendment fucks so far. I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. You'll get used to it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:53:57 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: rictus is making powerful points here. one of the troubling things that comes to mind is the concept of self-defense against certain kinds of arms. by bearing a rifle or pistol, i am ipso facto in a position to defend myself against attack from someone bearing similar arms. a bad guy might win the gunfight (i'm not terrible proficient), but at least I have a say in the matter. so there you are in business class, on final approach to NYC. as you look out your window, you see an SA-6 arching up from a mosque on the flightpath (because limiting it to MANPADS is arbitrary). you can't defend yourself against that by having your own SAMs, and all the SA in the world isn't going to help you, the passenger. so in essence, equal armament gives you no say in the matter. i suppose one could argue that flying is a choice, and if you take a flight and die, it's your own fault. but on a broad scale, the country is built around air travel, and any flight, anywhere could be shot down, because anyone could own SAMs with no oversight or regulation at all. in this way, SAMs (or nuclear) are a lot different than a bad guy with a DMR, because even if he's hiding, i can wear armor if i'm really that worried about it. if self-defense is an issue, then the ability to respond to threats symmetrically seems to be important. i am not outgunned by the bad guys, who have (at least to some degree) a limited scope of action. but in the case of SAMS, nuclear, or chemical, it's difficult to shoot back even if i have similar armament. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:54:30 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
224+ anti second amendment fucks so far. I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. Sorry dude...I am NOT gonna let manpads proliferate here at home. That's a nightmare scenario for airliners and civilian travel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:57:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry dude...I am NOT gonna let manpads proliferate here at home. That's a nightmare scenario for airliners and civilian travel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 224+ anti second amendment fucks so far. I am disappoint in almost half of arfcom. Sorry dude...I am NOT gonna let manpads proliferate here at home. That's a nightmare scenario for airliners and civilian travel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:57:27 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course. How is this even a question? Oh I dunno. Maybe because we dont want the James Holmes of the country to shoot down an airliner instead of some people in a theater. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 12:59:22 AM EDT
[#48]
I kind of like Pat Buchanan's take on the 2a. Something to the effect of, unless you have to back a truck up to tow it it should be covered by the 2a. Of course that's not a serious suggesting to having the "suitcase nuke" BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:00:32 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Simple question about how far you think "shall not be infringed" should extend. I've heard some people here make this claim before. Should the average Joe who has the cash be able to buy a Stinger or SA-7 as easily as a pistol or AR? Pass a simple background check, or should there even be that? (this is assuming that manufacturers/importers would have no qualms selling them over the counter). Yes or no? What in the ever living fuck |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2016 1:03:25 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Using that logic we should ban rifles because you are defenseless to somebody shooting you from a mile out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
rictus is making powerful points here. one of the troubling things that comes to mind is the concept of self-defense against certain kinds of arms. by bearing a rifle or pistol, i am ipso facto in a position to defend myself against attack from someone bearing similar arms. a bad guy might win the gunfight (i'm not terrible proficient), but at least I have a say in the matter. so there you are in business class, on final approach to NYC. as you look out your window, you see an SA-6 arching up from a mosque on the flightpath (because limiting it to MANPADS is arbitrary). you can't defend yourself against that by having your own SAMs, and all the SA in the world isn't going to help you, the passenger. so in essence, equal armament gives you no say in the matter. i suppose one could argue that flying is a choice, and if you take a flight and die, it's your own fault. but on a broad scale, the country is built around air travel, and any flight, anywhere could be shot down, because anyone could own SAMs with no oversight or regulation at all. in this way, SAMs (or nuclear) are a lot different than a bad guy with a DMR, because even if he's hiding, i can wear armor if i'm really that worried about it. if self-defense is an issue, then the ability to respond to threats symmetrically seems to be important. i am not outgunned by the bad guys, who have (at least to some degree) a limited scope of action. but in the case of SAMS, nuclear, or chemical, it's difficult to shoot back even if i have similar armament. Wow. Its been hard enough to keep the guns. What do you thinks happens the first time someone shoots down an airliner? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
