"Hey, I Want To Fly an F-14" - Takei

[Ed Suspicious]

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hey-i-want-fly-f-14

It’d be great fun to fly a big, expensive machine that could reign terror down from the skies. At least, that’s how it plays out in my head. Now, I know that this is not going to happen for a number of reasons, even though I am credited with being the best helmsman in the galaxy.

[msongs]

1. you have a 2A right to have one. go for it nt

[a geek named Bob]

2. umm...

The aircraft itself isn't covered by the 2nd amendment...

[villager]

3. Gosh, because it didn't exist at the time the Framers wrote the amendment!?

Well shit howdy!

[a geek named Bob]

5. no... it's because an AIRCRAFT isn't a weapon per se

it's what you ADD to the aircraft that starts bringing in 2nd amendment issues, logistics, tactics...

Hell a pilot with RPG's strapped to a C-1752 is dangerous. The C-172 by itself? not a weapon...

[villager]

9. Hmm.... all those civilian, non-combat uses of the F-14 that had previously escaped me!

[a geek named Bob]

16. well... F-14s are getting shredded, due a panic over them getting shipped/smuggled to Iran...

but there's a few mil jobs around...

http://www.globalplanesearch.com/warbirds/jets/
http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=10072

In aviation, there's a long running joke about the 100 dollar hamburger.

Also... flying'g fun. Flying fast is more fun.

[villager]

17. well, then shoot -- F-14's all around, since they're so much fun!

It's what the "Framers" would have wanted!

[a geek named Bob]

19. As long as you can afford the gas and the maintenance, I don't see a problem.

When you buy a "civilianized" fighter jet... you aren't buying any weapons.

[villager]

21. Not sure who, exactly, is *buying* those

But hey, fuck all to conservation and aviation safety -- if someone's got the cash, that's all that matters!

[ManiacJoe]

24. If you have the money, why not?

However, the fuel and maintenance and storage fees are going to hurt.

[villager]

27. Because money should entitle you to do whatever the fuck you want!

n/t

[a geek named Bob]

40. sure, provided it's legal. n/t

[villager]

41. And we can always buy us some laws! So the rest of you -- sod off!

n/t

[a geek named Bob]

42. so a private individual buying an aircraft isn't the problem... n/t

[villager]

44. actually not -- since military aircraft aren't generally sold to inviduals

Bad enough we're so invested in selling them to other countries!

[a geek named Bob]

45. Actually... they are

I can buy a kit plane that matches ALL of the specs for a Spitfire or a FW-109...
I can buy (from those sites I listed) a Vietnam era aircraft (mostly A4's)...

so your point is kind of messed up...

As for the rest: what's wrong with selling aircraft for defense?

[villager]

47. Your comparing a Spitfire to an F-14 is a wee bit messed up too

And Geek Bob, if you're that in love with the international arms trade, and how it skews policy decisions, and costs real lives (but hey, not in your "individualist" circle, so it's okay, right?), well then...

...ain't nothin' I can say to help you see the light.

[a geek named Bob]

48. That was almost religious in tone

1.) A Spitfire is a warplane - and a damn good one.
2.) I'm not "in love" with the international arms trade. I do believe in the right to defend oneself.
3.) You seem to want to demonize me... to further your goals. Not a sign of a good argument there...
4.) I guess I'm not a sheep you can "save..."

I guess I'll have to be a mountain goat.

[villager]

49. Okay, Bob. You can Mountain Goat to your heart's content!

happy prop planes vs. fighter jets on the computer simulations!

[a geek named Bob]

50. Thank you for that benison, chaplain...

As I pointed out earlier, I posted links showing JETS for sale. Did you miss that one?

As to the rest of your note... I actually FLY aircraft. (of course, on Internet, no one knows you're a dog...)

[a geek named Bob]

25. right... we've moved "is this legal?" to "should you buy it..."

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

An old button from Fandom: "conservatives need to learn that a 'vice' isn't a felony. Liberals need to learn that a 'virtue' isn't an order."

Jets are perfectly safe to fly, provided you have the training, and regular maintenance.

[ManiacJoe]

22. How is this duel-engine jet different

from the normal corporate duel-engine jets, excluding passenger comfort?

It is not like you can get the guns and external weapons still attached. Nor would you get the radar and lots of other electronics.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Having a F-14 has nothing to do with the 2A.

It's not like you are going to get it with any gun or missiles still intact.

But if you have the money and the time to work the system you can probably get one.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. skip the F-14, and just give us shoulder-launched missiles

How are these different than guns? They're both "arms", yes? So why do some defend the notion of owning very deadly weapons when we call them "guns", but these same people are fine with restrictions on other weapons, like Stinger missiles?

[ManiacJoe]

18. Missiles, bombs, rockets, and the like

are indiscriminate weapons. Their explosions and shrapnel go in all directions and hit lots of people and stuff that were not your original target. Indiscriminate weapons have no valid use in the hands of individuals outside the military.

Guns are discriminant weapons. The bullets go where you aimed and hit only what you pointed the gun at. These kind of weapons have many valid uses in civilian hands, even though they can be misused to great misery.

[stevenleser]

20. All of which has nothing to do with the second amendment as written.

If you believe in the second amendment as written, it talks about a right to bear arms, not guns.

Every dictionary reference I have ever read says arms means weapons. It talks about especially guns, but they also list various other arms like ICBMs, bombs, etc.

If you dont believe the second amendment is literal, then that opens it up to all kinds of interpretation and that, imho, includes that the militia is the military of today and you only have the right to bear weapons in the military.

[ManiacJoe]

28. True, but as others like to keep reminding folks,

the USSC has repeatedly ruled that your rights are not free from reasonable restrictions. This is an example of an actually reasonable restriction.

[stevenleser]

29. I think restricting gun ownership to Military/police/national guard is a reasonable restriction

once that can of worms is open...

[ManiacJoe]

38. Most folks don't see that restriction as reasonable however.

You are welcome to try it though. If you are up to the challenge, lots of states and the federal constitutions would need to be amended.

[11 Bravo]

26. "The bullets go where you aimed and only hit what you pointed the gun at."

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you mean to tell me that there has never been an accidental shooting in American history? I'll be damned! Who knew?

[stevenleser]

30. OMG, that is hillarious. Great point!

[ManiacJoe]

33. Some are accidental, most are negligent.

Most "accidents" are the results of folks pointing guns at people/objects they did not really intend to shoot then pulling the trigger when they did not intend to do so. Unfortunately, the bullet then goes where it gun was pointed/aimed when the trigger was pulled.

Now you know.

The Four Rules of Safety are there for a reason.
http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html

[11 Bravo]

39. Thanks for the education.

FYI, I have fired weapons in my life, sometimes toward people who were shooting back. An M-16, for example, on full auto in the hands of an FNG, will recoil so severely that the troop will shoot the shit out of the canopy, while not providing a bit of covering fire. That's why we were trained to fire in three round bursts, (but when the shit got hot, newbies tended to go to full rock and roll). So I'll say it again, bullets do not always go in the direction that the weapon was intended to send them.

[ManiacJoe]

43. Sounds like you understand, just need to tighten up on the semantics.

> So I'll say it again, bullets do not always go in the direction that the weapon was intended to send them.

That is very true. However, what I said was that the bullets go in the direction the weapon as actually pointed in, which you confirmed.

Your experience shows why the current m16/m4 rifles are not full auto, but only 3-round burst.

[11 Bravo]

46. I understand what you are trying to say, but I will continue to take issue ...

with the statement in the post to which I originally reponded that "the bullets go where you aimed". Where the gun was pointed? Indisputably! (Unless it's not properly zeroed in.) But that wasn't all that you said, and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that bullets do NOT always go where they were aimed. I hope this sufficiently tightens up my semantics for you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Good point. In light of this information, please place an order for this discriminate gun for me

Obviously, I'm not being serious. The point is, Big Bertha fired a single shell, and it went exactly where it was aimed. Some guns are dangerous and should not be in the hands of civilians. Big Bertha is one of these guns. There are lots more besides BB, and most of them are hand-held.

[ManiacJoe]

34. Cool photo.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Not Takai...Takei

"galaxy," not "galax"

[Ed Suspicious]

10. lol! Fixed. Thank you sir. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

13. My pleasure

It still says "galax"

[Ed Suspicious]

51. derp. n/t

[AntiFascist]

7. Just what we need...

75 year olds flying bombers.

[stevenleser]

23. A bomber would make more sense, they are more like airliners. A fighter like an F-14 is crazier. nt

[a geek named Bob]

31. Depends on the purpose...

A fighter's like a sports car. Fast and maneuverable. Bombers are like a bus...

If you want to drive a bus... fine.

[AntiFascist]

35. Actually I can relate...

I used to have an F-22 simulator program (called i-22 ?) and I loved practicing the takeoffs and landings. I never got into the bombing simulations though!!

[a geek named Bob]

36. I learned to fly from my late father...

He flew A-4s, A-6s, and A-7s... In a little situation called Vietnam

[Posteritatis]

11. Fitting that the post sailed over peoples' heads.

Love that "react to the headline and roll with it from there" trend.

[ManiacJoe]

37. The title AND the opening and closing paragraphs.

You can get the anti-gun post from anywhere.

[JHB]

12. It might be tough, as they were retired six years ago...

...and since Iran still has some from purchases by the Shah, access to stored ones is tighter than usual so they don't get access to parts.

[Posteritatis]

14. He's just hoping to one-up Dorn's F-86. (nt)

[X_Digger]

15. Umm.. He needs to talk to another trek cast member..

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=66f6e7ed-4125-430c-a414-2cadc7fa183c