National Feds insist Second Amendment doesn't protect machine guns

[Alexx1401]

Should citizens be allowed to own Stinger AA rocket launchers capable of shooting down commercial airlines?

Should citizens be held accountable for crimes they commit? Such as when a citizen kills in cold blood should they be killed the same way? Should it happen FAST, say in days of the crime when its clear cut? Or should we continue down the same path we have been on for most of my life. Where citizens can commit crimes over and over again and we bend over backwards to never make them feel bad and keep letting them back out? Instead just pass more laws, and ban more things from those who do follow the law?

 

[Koda]

Yes.

Should citizens be heavily punished, to the point of death penalty or life without parole for attacking commercial airliners and murdering passengers?

Also yes.

No different than driving a truck through a crowd or setting off IEDs or burning buildings with people in them, all of which have happened

Except life or capital punishment has zero effect on mass murders or people who would commit acts of terrorism like target planes.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Except life or capital punishment has zero effect on mass murders or people who would commit acts of terrorism like target planes.

How's that different from other forms of mass murders..... In any case.. as has been abundantly shown, the vast majority of gun and weapon owners/collectors are pretty damn responsible and law-abiding. And the FBI UCJ reports seem to say that legal NFA owners are very unlikely to commit murders/homicides/assaults with their registered NFA items. There's been a big jump in the likes of Glock Switches being used but... That's... Handguns , still the largest portion of crimes committed with firearms. Rifles of all kinds, very low. Large crew served weapons, almost nil. Explosives, amazingly low even with the abundance of materials to make explosives with.

And as @Ura-Ki mentioned, the missiles are not cheap. Currently Stinger missiles range in cost from $120,000 to $400,000.. some missile systems way more

Missile Interceptors by Cost – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

 

[Ura-Ki]

Except life or capital punishment has zero effect on mass murders or people who would commit acts of terrorism like target planes.

That's where we go back to a much earlier time and remove the mentally ill from society and keep them tucked away so they cannot harm others, that would fix 99.5 percent of those issues! It really IS the most humane thing we as a society could do for them, allow them to participate in useful employment and allow them to live up to their potential, just not allow them out side the gate and into normal society! Inside they would have care and treatments that focus on helping them cope with their demons, done in a way the is caring and compassionate, so the gooberment isn't involved in that at all, just to ensure its fully funded, and they collect on the output of these folks just like the rest of the normies!

 

[The Heretic]

But many countries, and even terrorist organizations have access to NBC weapons, so why shouldn't civilian Americans be denied access to NBC weapons, if only for testing inventions and stupid ideas?

The reason is that NBC weapons must be maintained and stored properly to be safe. If the weapons are neglected, they can leak and harm people, without any human mishandling.

If you bury a gun/cannon/etc., or leave it in a shed, or throw it into a lake, it will not harm anyone or anything without someone messing with it.

NBC weapons can and sometimes do leak, just from aging. That leakage can harm someone walking by the weapon, leak into the air or water or ground, and a person can be unknowingly contaminated and become sick or killed.

That is the difference.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The reason is that NBC weapons must be maintained and stored properly to be safe. If the weapons are neglected, they can leak and harm people, without any human mishandling.

If you bury a gun/cannon/etc., or leave it in a shed, or throw it into a lake, it will not harm anyone or anything without someone messing with it.

NBC weapons can and sometimes do leak, just from aging. That leakage can harm someone walking by the weapon, leak into the air or water or ground, and a person can be unknowingly contaminated and become sick or killed.

That is the difference.

I personally don't see that much difference with specific industrial chemicals and the like. Or food waste. Nuclear though, I can see that but again like I said, those three things are very expensive, and it would be very likely to be even more tightly controlled than anything else, even if it becomes legal for private citizens to have access to them.

But again, that's why I'd be okay with full parity or better in terms of weapons, if it means no NBC under control of anyone but since that's a genie long out of the lamp; we'll see what ends up being the reality (probably the complete opposite, govt fully monopolize it's control of weapons regardless of type)

 

[Koda]

Im not against the idea but just think its way more complicated than it seems.

 

[The Heretic]

I personally don't see that much difference with specific industrial chemicals and the like. Or food waste. Nuclear though, I can see that but again like I said, those three things are very expensive, and it would be very likely to be even more tightly controlled than anything else, even if it becomes legal for private citizens to have access to them.

The difference is the NBC weapons are particularly lethal and are designed/intended to spread.

But again, that's why I'd be okay with full parity or better in terms of weapons, if it means no NBC under control of anyone but since that's a genie long out of the lamp; we'll see what ends up being the reality (probably the complete opposite, govt fully monopolize it's control of weapons regardless of type)

As I said: "which nobody, including the government, should have"

 

[bradsteen]

The problem with the "parity of arms" argument is that many of the arms the military uses (tanks, planes, etc.) require support infrastructure to acquire and maintain, specialized training to operate, and massive stretches of land to conduct that training, all of which is beyond the financial reach of nearly all civilians. So, it's kind of a moot point.

 

[The Heretic]

The problem with the "parity of arms" argument is that many of the arms the military uses (tanks, planes, etc.) require support infrastructure to acquire and maintain, specialized training to operate, and massive stretches of land to conduct that training, all of which is beyond the financial reach of nearly all civilians. So, it's kind of a moot point.

There are more than a few people that own tanks and war planes (the latter generally do have their "hard points" removed). I don't know of a civilian that owns a working battleship these days, but during the first hundred years or so of the USA, there were privateers who did, complete with working cannons.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The problem with the "parity of arms" argument is that many of the arms the military uses (tanks, planes, etc.) require support infrastructure to acquire and maintain, specialized training to operate, and massive stretches of land to conduct that training, all of which is beyond the financial reach of nearly all civilians. So, it's kind of a moot point.

Civilian defense groups. Landowners. Ranchers. Like for feral hog eradication. Municipal airports with private hangars are already in widespread use for private pilots and owners of private planes. For land vehicles like tanks and trucks, there are many garages big enough and some people have literal shops for farm equipment, so there's already some infrastructure for such things. Owner/operator CDL trucks with flat bed trailers for transporting heavy items already exist. There are several private collectors with large collection of tanks and aircraft, in the United States.

Also, corporations can provide some funding and support for items, like Draken International (private warplane company).

I'm saying it is not really out of the reach of private citizens if they can afford it.

Edit. I would think the US military would jump at the chance to do force on force training with large number of civilians and private warplanes especially if the private warplanes are similar or the same as what's used by other countries... And even moreso if the civilians have similar or same equipment as other countries and even US surplus equipment... For peer to peer warfare/same level.... So an annual training exercise with "insurgents and Rebels" would be fun.

 

[Koda]

As I said: "which nobody, including the government, should have"

Only if there are conventional weapon alternatives that are equally effective. The problem is the bad nations will never stop producing NBC weapons no matter what deal is signed. The terrorist groups wont either. I'm ok with volunteering not to make them as long as it doesn't leave us at a disadvantage.

 

[Koda]

The problem with the "parity of arms" argument is that many of the arms the military uses (tanks, planes, etc.) require support infrastructure to acquire and maintain, specialized training to operate, and massive stretches of land to conduct that training, all of which is beyond the financial reach of nearly all civilians. So, it's kind of a moot point.

If we made private militas legal they would have the resources to own and maintain such arms.

 

[Alexx1401]

That's where we go back to a much earlier time and remove the mentally ill from society and keep them tucked away so they cannot harm others, that would fix 99.5 percent of those issues! It really IS the most humane thing we as a society could do for them, allow them to participate in useful employment and allow them to live up to their potential, just not allow them out side the gate and into normal society! Inside they would have care and treatments that focus on helping them cope with their demons, done in a way the is caring and compassionate, so the gooberment isn't involved in that at all, just to ensure its fully funded, and they collect on the output of these folks just like the rest of the normies!

Ever since they decided to open the nut houses and turn the kooks loose on everyone it has been a constant drumbeat of "this is why we need more laws". Of course those pushing the new laws always want to make excuses for the scum who leave victims in their wake.

 

[The Heretic]

Only if there are conventional weapon alternatives that are equally effective. The problem is the bad nations will never stop producing NBC weapons no matter what deal is signed. The terrorist groups wont either. I'm ok with volunteering not to make them as long as it doesn't leave us at a disadvantage.

My objection to governments possessing NBC weaponry is not without problems, and is more of a philosophical stance than a practical one.

Of course, once the genie was out of the bottle, so to speak, there is/was no way of stuffing it back in, and then there are the "bad actors", and other nuances.

I mention NBC weaponry so as to be clear where I draw a "line in the sand" for possession of weaponry, and I include governments as well as civilians, because that makes it clear that I am not saying that there are weapons that it is okay for the government to have but not civilians.

 

[CamoDeafie]

My objection to governments possessing NBC weaponry is not without problems, and is more of a philosophical stance than a practical one.

Of course, once the genie was out of the bottle, so to speak, there is/was no way of stuffing it back in, and then there are the "bad actors", and other nuances.

I mention NBC weaponry so as to be clear where I draw a "line in the sand" for possession of weaponry, and I include governments as well as civilians, because that makes it clear that I am not saying that there are weapons that it is okay for the government to have but not civilians.

And philosophically I am on the flip side, I would trust private citizens to be far more responsible with NBC materials than the government, even with corporations. There are far too many accidents coming from neglect, and incompetence of government agencies and corporations.

 

[bradsteen]

I don't know of a civilian that owns a working battleship these days, but during the first hundred years or so of the USA, there were privateers who did, complete with working cannons.

Commercial vessels at the time were constantly targeted by pirates, and when their ships were captured the crews were often sold into slavery or ransomed. So, in that context the cannons were for legitimate defensive purposes. They were also encouraged by the US government to be armed because they could be leased by the government from the owner and used as fighting or transport vessels.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Commercial vessels at the time were constantly targeted by pirates, and when their ships were captured the crews were often sold into slavery or ransomed. So, in that context the cannons were for legitimate defensive purposes. They were also encouraged by the US government to be armed because they could be leased by the government from the owner and used as fighting or transport vessels.

Commercial vessels are still being targeted by pirates, especially near Somalia, and I believe, in Indonesia island chains and South Pacific, particularly from insurgents and anti-govt forces there?

 

[bradsteen]

Commercial vessels are still being targeted by pirates, especially near Somalia, and I believe, in Indonesia island chains and South Pacific, particularly from insurgents and anti-govt forces there?

Sure are, and vessels traveling into those waters should be armed, IMO. But that threat is virtually non-existent in US waters.

Edit to add - as far as I can tell from some quick online research the last documented act of piracy in US waters was in 1862.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Edit to add - as far as I can tell from some quick online research the last documented act of piracy in US waters was in 1862.

I downloaded a Metallica album last week, but I'm a good 75 or 80 miles from the coast