Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Joe Link, Jul 25, 2009.
Should ordinary citizens be able to own RPGs, claymores, tanks, armed F-14s, etc.?
I guess you'll need to define ordinary, as some people shouldn't even have guns.
What's the criteria going to be for who owns what?
only if they open carry
Since when does an inalienable RIGHT have a criteria for implementation?:huh:
I think you that if you are allowed to VOTE, you should be able to own WHATEVER you want. What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand? But then again, I am quoting old fashioned documents that many say have no place in a modern USA. (Even though many took an oath to uphold them in their entirety).
I find it interesting that the whole firearms regulation thing was started because people wanted to keep weapons out of the hands of the undesirables, and was VERY racial in nature. It tends to scare the crap out of me when the local cops and military have better weapons than I do. I have a healthy respect for what they do (I did it for quite some time), but if they can't trust ME to have something, why in the heck should I trust Them to have the same item. After all, we have all seen the "GOOD" that the .GOV does with their weapons.
Why dance around then? Should you be able to possess a nuke? Does the 2nd amendment protect that? Is it a god given right? If not, why not?
I say ( YES) for me to own all of the above.. Cause I like them all !! Thats the simple truth it, for no reason other then I think they would be fun to have and maybe use after some training
Hey, why not a couple of claymores in the front yard, and a tank next to the garage..maybe a M-60 on the roof..look out zombies.
what is an "ordinary" citizen. perhaps one that is not extraordinary? so, then, what is an extraordinary citizen? maybe education defines the line between ordinary and extraordinary? income? land ownership?
okay, so forget that for a second. this business about planes, tanks, and nukes. i feel compeled to point out that as tax payers, we already own all that stuff.
is what you are trying to ask, "does the second ammendment protect an individuals right to keep and bear attack choppers, anti personel mines, shoulder launched anti-tank weapons, etc?"
the simple answer is no. none of those things are defined as arms. it was never the intent of the 2a to provide that the citizen army, or militia, should have the responsibility of keeping such weapons in a ready state. it was the responsibility of the state and local garrisons to keep and maintain such weapons.
Citizens can own tanks and If you could find an F14 for sale I beleive that is legal also. I don't really feel I'm going to argue a need for armed planes or Tanks in the average citizens hands.
I will defer the argument in favor of destructive devices to others I don't see a need.
The topic does bring up the question of what kind of destructive devises can a Type 9 FFL possess and trade in?
We don't own it, it isn't yours to trade or sell. We just get to pay for it.
No way if I get my permission slip from my mom turned in the F22 is MINE!!!
My mommy doesn't let me play with fighter jets.
Consider collateral damage,...
The more a weapon is capable of, the harder it should be to get. That's why WMDs are what they are. And RPG is less so, but I still can't see an instance where I'd need one to defend myself against anything shy of NATO, the NG or army coming to get me in a stryker, bradley or similar vehicle.
If it comes to that we're screwed anyway.
Keep your powder dry and have a plan,...
A private one.
I say anything that represents the modern equivalent of an 18th Century militia weapon should be allowed. I don't know of any reason to restrict anything short of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And they would not have been understood by the founders to be the sorts of "arms" to be kept and born by ordinary citizens anyway.
We let goobers careen two ton steel death machines down the freeway at 75 mph, and any crackpot could get in a private airplane full of fuel and take out a school. What's that compared to an RPG or claymore? If a guy can afford a tank or F-14, great. Good luck to him. If he goes postal, it's no worse than the same guy with a tanker truck full of gasoline or a train engineer with 20 cars of anhydrous ammonia.
Compromising Second Amendment rights is a slippery slope.
Anyone can own a tank or a fighter jet now already.
With a few permission slips thay can also own RPGs and Claymores, grenades, cannons, SAMs, etc.
Yes, they should be allowed to continue.
Citizens who have not committed a felony should be allowed to own what ever they want. I have to agree with no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. But if you haven't committed any crimes why shouldn't you be allowed to own other weapons. Punish any one who misuses them. PUNISH THEM SEVERELY, NOT EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE THEY MIGHT MISUSE THEM.
the same argument is used for guns. you might hurt someone with them so you shouldn't own them.
One of the underlying reasons behind the 2nd ammendment (AS I UNDERSTAND IT, your understanding may be different) was for defense of our homes, country and loved ones. Anything that allows others (other countries, terrorists, criminals, our own government...) an advantage undermines my percieved understanding of the 2nd ammendment. Yes there are people who should not be allowed to have guns/weapons and I see that as a people problem not a gun problem. It is not practical for private citizens to own F14s or Nukes or even tanks really, I think in a real SHTF situation these would have to be captured at the expense of a great loss of life in order to be turned against those who would use them against us but it is sort of a moot point to argue whether we should have the right to own something that we could not reasonably afford to own. Should we have the right? certainly...but would that right really do us any good?
I think we should be careful about banning all felons from being able to bear arms. Remember: The government criminalizes what it wants to. It could make it a felony to run a red light. If gun rights are, in part, a check on tyrannical government, I wouldn't so casually permit that same government to define who gets to own guns.
Separate names with a comma.