[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Edited (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 12/30/2012 7:59:07 PM EDT
| For those that didn't catch the post the other day, I've been schooling the hell out of my California born, liberal uncle. He randomly brought up rocket launchers to see where I draw the line. Have any of you ever had to deal with this? I know the 2nd is very specific and they should be allowed... but how do you argue with this notion? |
|
cannon were privately owned. Privateers had them (private ships). But naturally, they were also expensive to buy and operate and of limited utility so few people had them. Rocket launchers and grenades or RPGs would be similarly expensive even if they were legal. Now...police have them and police - while government employees are still civilians aren't they? So.... it would seem that civilians are allowed them provided they get a government pay check (that presumes their loyalty/self control?). I think it fascinating that someone would pay tens of thousands of dollars on a cannon or rocket launcher and then go off half cocked with one.
But that's how antigun people think - everyone's a Rambo to them. No sense of proportion or self-control. It would be interesting to know how many civil war era cannon exist in private hands. There's got to be hundreds of those black powder field guns scattered around the country. They're all privately owned functional cannon. And hugely expensive. None have been used in crimes that I know of. |
|
Quoted: cannon were privately owned. Privateers had them (private ships). But naturally, they were also expensive to buy and operate and of limited utility so few people had them. Rocket launchers and grenades or RPGs would be similarly expensive even if they were legal. Now...police have them and police - while government employees are still civilians aren't they? So.... it would seem that civilians are allowed them provided they get a government pay check (that presumes their loyalty/self control?). I think it fascinating that someone would pay tens of thousands of dollars on a cannon or rocket launcher and then go off half cocked with one. But that's how antigun people think - everyone's a Rambo to them. No sense of proportion or self-control. It would be interesting to know how many civil war era cannon exist in private hands. There's got to be hundreds of those black powder field guns scattered around the country. They're all privately owned functional cannon. And hugely expensive. None have been used in crimes that I know of. Be funny as hell to see someone rolling one of those up to hold up a convenience store... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wealthy colonists fielded military units including cannon... And private warships with letters of marquee. Yup, but in fairness that was after the revolution I believe.  It's a letter of marque and reprisal. Marquee is the sign over the theater. So they'd only use those if they were avenging the Pirates Of Penzance. We came from a country that used privateers and we allied with France, who also used them. |
|
Quoted:
cannon were privately owned. Privateers had them (private ships). But naturally, they were also expensive to buy and operate and of limited utility so few people had them. Rocket launchers and grenades or RPGs would be similarly expensive even if they were legal. Now...police have them and police - while government employees are still civilians aren't they? So.... it would seem that civilians are allowed them provided they get a government pay check (that presumes their loyalty/self control?). I think it fascinating that someone would pay tens of thousands of dollars on a cannon or rocket launcher and then go off half cocked with one. But that's how antigun people think - everyone's a Rambo to them. No sense of proportion or self-control. It would be interesting to know how many civil war era cannon exist in private hands. There's got to be hundreds of those black powder field guns scattered around the country. They're all privately owned functional cannon. And hugely expensive. None have been used in crimes that I know of. I would like to point out that SFC John J. Rambo just wanted something to eat. You must be some king shit cop. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wealthy colonists fielded military units including cannon... And private warships with letters of marquee. Yup, but in fairness that was after the revolution I believe. It's a letter of marque and reprisal. Marquee is the sign over the theater. So they'd only use those if they were avenging the Pirates Of Penzance. We came from a country that used privateers and we allied with France, who also used them. That's a whole lot of piratey navy talk. I'm just a grunt. |
|
It's actually pretty easy to argue. Do you think innocent Americans should have access to the proper weaponry to protect themselves from the murderous narco-terrorists Obama has been supplying with rocket launchers, grenades, and belt-fed machineguns?
Tell him to research Foreign Military Sales to Mexico under Obama. If he says, "But that's for the Mexican Army." Educate him about the relationship between the cartels and the Army. For example, when we ship 5,000 Colt M4A1 carbines down to Guadalajara via State Department-approved FMS, only 68% of the weapons can be accounted for before they even leave the warehouses at the airport. Then ask him how many Mexican trucks pass through the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama-approved GATT-NAFTA corridors every day. Then have him do a google image search on beheadings in Mexico. Warning: Extremely graphic pics of Mexican Beheadings |
|
Quoted:
http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html Good read. Why is your screen name blue? |
|
Rocket launchers? This is the best argument he can come up with?
If you follow it to the extreme...then yes...2nd Amendment would cover that. Frankly...if the military has it, or LEO has it...then we should too. We should be able to defend ourselves against whatever they are using these weapons against. This is one of the reasons the 2A exists. To keep the citizenry safe from enemies foreign and domestic!! Wanna see gun control in action? Check out Mexico. Only the criminal drug clowns have guns....and Mexico has had over 60K deaths in the past 3 years? The border towns are freakin DMZs. Rocket launchers? I'm still working on those small tactical nukes in the basement. Should be ready by spring...unless Feinstein has it listed in the ban...then I'm hosed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
cannon were privately owned. Privateers had them (private ships). But naturally, they were also expensive to buy and operate and of limited utility so few people had them. Rocket launchers and grenades or RPGs would be similarly expensive even if they were legal. Now...police have them and police - while government employees are still civilians aren't they? So.... it would seem that civilians are allowed them provided they get a government pay check (that presumes their loyalty/self control?). I think it fascinating that someone would pay tens of thousands of dollars on a cannon or rocket launcher and then go off half cocked with one. But that's how antigun people think - everyone's a Rambo to them. No sense of proportion or self-control. It would be interesting to know how many civil war era cannon exist in private hands. There's got to be hundreds of those black powder field guns scattered around the country. They're all privately owned functional cannon. And hugely expensive. None have been used in crimes that I know of. I would like to point out that SFC John J. Rambo just wanted something to eat. You must be some king shit cop. He wasn't even picky, trained to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. |
|
(flame suit on)
I agree with Justice Scalia's opinion that "reasonable restrictions" include rockets and missiles. I believe that anyone should be able to own small arms and belt fed machine guns up to and including .50cal M2. Nothing bigger. No Mk19, no Stingers. I don't want my plane getting shot down. |
|
Fortunately a dictionary was written close to the same time as the constitution, so we can analyze the intent of the founders by examining what words they used and did not use.
Arm's were defined as infantry weapons, and ordnance was used for heavier and indiscriminate weaponry. Ergo the use of the word arms limits the Second to man portable, infantry weapons which are primarily anti-infantry and discriminate (capable of being aimed). Anything explosive is by its nature indiscriminate and ordnance, therefore outside of the scope of the second amendment as written. |
|
I think they could be legal with no problems. They should be, anyways. If they were legalized now, I assume the launcher would be a firearm, and each warhead would a DD stamp. This is just hypothetical. This is assuming that the manufacturer(s) would even sell you the launcher or warheads. This would make these very expensive to have and use, which would essentially make them just like our current full-auto machine guns, which are expensive to purchase and feed. There are thousands of legal, full-auto machine guns out there. How many are used in crime each year? How about since 1934? If I wanted to kill a lot of people, I wouldn't use a single shot rocket launcher. But, as mentioned above, liberals think in terms of movies. We are all Bunny from Platoon to them.
|
|
yeah, so Heller has affirmed that 2 affirms an indidual's right to keep/bear for private self defense, not just if one is a member of the nat guard. However, don't forget, that 2 also speaks of the militia. Actually, it is not referring to the nat guard, as we know, but to the militia general, which is every able bodies man from 18-45 who is not a professional soilder or reservist or guard member, and/or of what was generally called the "Stae militia" in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
I can't say that I believe that 2 affirms an individual's right to own crew served weapons or arlillery etc, but it for damn sure does permit, at the very least the governer's state militia (not the national guard) to own whatever they want and the militial general to own some ordnance if it is held in the context of the community. Furthermore, do note that a lot of what you guys speak can be legally owned as Destructive Devises per the NFA act. |
|
Quoted:
Fortunately a dictionary was written close to the same time as the constitution, so we can analyze the intent of the founders by examining what words they used and did not use. Arm's were defined as infantry weapons, and ordnance was used for heavier and indiscriminate weaponry. Ergo the use of the word arms limits the Second to man portable, infantry weapons which are primarily anti-infantry and discriminate (capable of being aimed). Anything explosive is by its nature indiscriminate and ordnance, therefore outside of the scope of the second amendment as written. 
You're full of shit. How does that apply to ordnance that is carried by infantry in the field? How about ordnance that is aimed and "discriminates"? Claymores, LAW, RPG-7, grenades, Stinger missiles, etc? |
|
Quoted:
Wealthy colonists fielded military units including cannon... So, maybe the best response is to rephrase that fact as a question: "Do you believe that American colonialists who brought their personal cannons to fight the British should have been arrested for being in possession of 'weapons of mass destruction' "? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wealthy colonists fielded military units including cannon... And private warships with letters of marquee. Yup, but in fairness that was after the revolution I believe. As late as the Indian and Civil Wars, Rich officers outfitted their own Units out of their pockets. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fortunately a dictionary was written close to the same time as the constitution, so we can analyze the intent of the founders by examining what words they used and did not use. Arm's were defined as infantry weapons, and ordnance was used for heavier and indiscriminate weaponry. Ergo the use of the word arms limits the Second to man portable, infantry weapons which are primarily anti-infantry and discriminate (capable of being aimed). Anything explosive is by its nature indiscriminate and ordnance, therefore outside of the scope of the second amendment as written.
You're full of shit. How does that apply to ordnance that is carried by infantry in the field? How about ordnance that is aimed and "discriminates"? Claymores, LAW, RPG-7, grenades, Stinger missiles, etc? Hand grenades and even rather dangerous flint lock grenade launchers were around at the time of the founding. Both explosive "indiscriminate" infantry weapons. |
|
Quoted:
The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived in a time when the average civilian had firearms equal to or better than those the military did. As it should always be... The only restriction I can see as legitimate is strategic weapons -- Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear weapons, etc. |
|
Yes, they pass for items covered under the second amendment, if you can BEAR the item. Per the USSC, the arms covered are those that can be carried by or on a person.
Now, Even though these are covered and you can carry them, the Government COULD and DOES, prohibit your right to these "unusal and dangerous" weapon. Why, well, because that is what the USSC said the government could do. Not saying this is right or wrong, just what it is. That is how I would argue it. Based upon case law and history. |
|
"argument of the beard" is a logical fallacy stating that since one cannot clearly point to the point at which stubble becomes a beard there is not substantial differenc b/t stubble and a beard. it is analogous to the difference b/t art and porn. It is had to define,..."but I know it when I see it."
Point is, just b/c there is some ambiguity there as to whether a M2, or a M40 grenade launcher or artillery or a tank could be legally owned by an individual, or a smaller or larger militia group associated w/ the governer or not doesn't have any bearing on the certainty that our newton-style weapons are constitutional. At the very fucking least, the original intent is that everyman not only could, but should own, and be able to qualify with, a serviceable contemporary infantry arm. Probably, not just rifle or assault carbine, but also belt fed machine guns and 40mm too since that is all the domain of the modern infantry. |
|
Quoted: For those that didn't catch the post the other day, I've been schooling the hell out of my California born, liberal uncle. He randomly brought up rocket launchers to see where I draw the line. Have any of you ever had to deal with this? I know the 2nd is very specific and they should be allowed... but how do you argue with this notion? if your uncle is a liberal he probably wants all drugs legalized because "he has the right to put whatever he wants into his own body". Tell him you have the right to shove a grenade in your body so by the same line of reasoning they should be legalized as well |
|
Quoted:
I have the same problem. It's hard to come off not sounding like an extremist. The USA: By extremists. For extremists. The simple point is for military arms in the hands of every man. NFA restrictions on DDs are far more disabling to the militia than those on full auto or whatever else. I know militia is a dirty word now, but in it original/constitutional meaning it is a good thing. |
|
Quoted:
cannon were privately owned. Privateers had them (private ships). But naturally, they were also expensive to buy and operate and of limited utility so few people had them. Rocket launchers and grenades or RPGs would be similarly expensive even if they were legal. Now...police have them and police - while government employees are still civilians aren't they? So.... it would seem that civilians are allowed them provided they get a government pay check (that presumes their loyalty/self control?). I think it fascinating that someone would pay tens of thousands of dollars on a cannon or rocket launcher and then go off half cocked with one. But that's how antigun people think - everyone's a Rambo to them. No sense of proportion or self-control. It would be interesting to know how many civil war era cannon exist in private hands. There's got to be hundreds of those black powder field guns scattered around the country. They're all privately owned functional cannon. And hugely expensive. None have been used in crimes that I know of. They are...NFA Items.. just like Modern Artillery..we have members HERE who own everything from 40mm Grenade launchers up through Towed Artillery, |
| You can buy a rocket launcher right now in most states. Just pay the 200 dollar tax and file the form 4 for the launcher, and pay the same tax, file the same form, and have an approved magazine for the ammo. You should be able to own them and you in fact can right now, it's just a pain. |
|
Quoted:
"argument of the beard" is a logical fallacy stating that since one cannot clearly point to the point at which stubble becomes a beard there is not substantial differenc b/t stubble and a beard. it is analogous to the difference b/t art and porn. It is had to define,..."but I know it when I see it." Point is, just b/c there is some ambiguity there as to whether a M2, or a M40 grenade launcher or artillery or a tank could be legally owned by an individual, or a smaller or larger militia group associated w/ the governer or not doesn't have any bearing on the certainty that our newton-style weapons are constitutional. At the very fucking least, the original intent is that everyman not only could, but should own, and be able to qualify with, a serviceable contemporary infantry arm. Probably, not just rifle or assault carbine, but also belt fed machine guns and 40mm too since that is all the domain of the modern infantry. And RPGs, and SA-7s, and Stinger missile systems, and Javelins, and LAW, and Claymores, etc, etc, etc... "modern infantry" covers a very large spectrum of weaponry. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those that didn't catch the post the other day, I've been schooling the hell out of my California born, liberal uncle. He randomly brought up rocket launchers to see where I draw the line. Have any of you ever had to deal with this? I know the 2nd is very specific and they should be allowed... but how do you argue with this notion? if your uncle is a liberal he probably wants all drugs legalized because "he has the right to put whatever he wants into his own body". Tell him you have the right to shove a grenade in your body so by the same line of reasoning they should be legalized as well Just be careful when removing it - make sure you pull out more than the pin. |