Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should SAM missles, RPG's, Claymore mines, ICBM's, and the sort

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:27 AM
Original message
Poll question: Should SAM missles, RPG's, Claymore mines, ICBM's, and the sort
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 12:46 AM by Bleachers7
be legally sold to the public? Are they part of your 2nd amendment rights? And if they are why aren't they sold?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. "A well regulated militia..."
Means that the militia may issue regulations.

Those regulations can state what sort of arms you may bear.

They cannot abridge your right to bear arms, but they may impose regulation on you, and subject you to criminal sanctions should you breech those regulations.

Personally, I think that they ought to require gun owners to show up and drill at least annually.

Those who own guns and do not show up do so illegally.

Those that do show up are drilled in safety and target practice so that at least they won't be shooting innocent bystanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbnd45 Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. An explanation I have heard
is that "arms" meant shoulder and hand-fired guns and swords, and bombs, icbms, grenades, etc., would have been referred to as "ordinance" at the time the second ammendment was written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Perhaps.
But even so, the "regulation" clause gives the militia the right to issue rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbnd45 Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. "regulated"
I think you over-analized the 2A. It says what it says and no amount of wordsmithing by any court can convince me otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes, what on earth have the courts to do with interpreting the law? /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbnd45 Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. They decide how they're gonna rule first,
and then find a way to justify it. There have been some very bad rulings in the courts reguarding slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Lately?
I think your understanding of the courts is about 150 years out of date. But hey, if it helps you deify your personal opinion . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I think YOUR understanding of the courts is out of date
Bush v. Gore anyone? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. That's REALLY funny, rom.....
The only way our "pro gun democrats" are going to get the rulings they want is if this unelected drunk can push a few more Scalias and Thomases onto the bench...

Which is why we see gun whackos all over the web pissing and moaning about "liberal judges"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Do you really believe
that the shameful five who decided Bush v Gore are the ones keeping the Supreme Court from overturning Silveira? Starting with that duck-hunting fool, Antonin Scalia? Or is it just the usual case of any argument that helps my side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DieboldMustDie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. I want my own nukes, damn it!
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yes they should all be legal for civilians to own.
ICBM's might be now, I don't really know the laws concerning ballistic missiles.

RPG's and other explosives are more or less legal, now, if you can afford them and the taxes on them. $200 a pop adds up quick.


As for why they aren't legal, isn't that obvious? Who is more a threat to the government a fellow with a $6000 trap gun or a guy with an RPG?* Does the government want to have to worry about DEA agents being annihilated next time they kick in some drug dealer's door?



*I stand by everything I have said in the past about the potential effectiveness of pistols, rifles, and shotguns against a modern military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. DEA agents annihilated...
"Does the government want to have to worry about DEA agents being annihilated next time they kick in some drug dealer's door?"

Couldn't you make the same argument about guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sure.
But the government can bring enough force to bear to wipe out pretty much any small group who resists with just guns, especially if they're just sitting in a house somewhere. Usually the government doesn't even lose any people in the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pert_UK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Holy living fuck.............
Yes, clearly the "obvious" reason for RPGs etc. being illegal is that they represent too high a threat to the government.....

Nothing to do with them having NO legitimate civilian use but representing a hideous danger to the general public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. What do you mean no legitimate civilian use?
Other than cranking off a few rounds in the backyard for kicks I can think of one highly publicized reason for owning an RPG right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pert_UK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. And that passes for logical argument, does it?
Number of occasions that an RPG would have had a legitimate civilian use and saved a life.

vs

Number of occasions that an RPG in civilian hands would have blown the ass off of something it shouldn't.

99.999999999999% of people will never be in a situation where an RPG would have saved the day. In order for the 0.000000000001% of people who might benefit from the presence of an RPG to actually benefit from one, everybody in the US would need to be carrying one (and trained in its useage) 24 hours a day. And that, my friends, would make everybody SO much safer.

I have rarely read such a moronic, pointless, self-defeating piece of rubbish.

I really just can't be bothered any more - it's like talking with children, it really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. At least as logical as
"Holy living fuck............."

and

"I have rarely read such a moronic, pointless, self-defeating piece of rubbish."

and

"I really just can't be bothered any more - it's like talking with children, it really is."

Those are some logical arguments, right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pert_UK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Genius.......
So you focus on my flowery expressions of surprise and incredulity regarding how someone could post such blatant nonsense, rather than explaining why my sensible, logical points don't obliterate the nonsense.

Nice work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Sensible logical points?
Oh, sorry, I hadn't noticed any.


Hmm, seems my side is winning this poll, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. ICBMs should be sold to the general public - that's "your side," is it?
Good to know, good to know.

Also useful in deciding whom to believe on the subject of sensible logical points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. What's wrong with ICBMs?
Are they even regulated currently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Anything larger than a 'G' engine requires an explosives permit now
Post-9/11 reinterpretation of regulations by the BATFE.

I believe the license is about $100. Storage requirements for pyrotechnics were strengthened too. It's made life difficult for commercial fireworks people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. I believe the real hurdle
would be getting a permit for firing something into orbit. I recall reading that the FAA or whatever agency was put in charge of regulating it had set up some pretty steep insurance requirements or something once it became clear that civilian space travel was becoming likely in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. They're just large rockets, max
I built a lot of model rockets as a youth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. InterContinental Ballistic Missiles - that's what ICBMs are.
Care to back away from the model rockets comparison with what's left of your credibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Please cite the law that says I can't build my own working Minuteman 3
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 11:08 AM by slackmaster
Put a dummy payload on it, and call it a 1:1 scale model of a nuclear weapons delivery system, fuel it up, and fly it. I'm sure some of the control systems are classified so I'd have to cook up my own, but there is NO upper limit on the size of a model rocket.

Everything that isn't prohibited is allowed. Burden of proof is on YOU to show that I can't do it.

Model rocket, by no means the largest ever flown:



Real nuclear weapon delivery system:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Read the question again. The first word is "Should," not "Can."
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 12:44 PM by library_max
But hey, far be it from me to suggest that it's completely insane for a private citizen to be able to spark a nuclear exchange with North Korea!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I think people should
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 12:50 PM by slackmaster
But only if they want to.

But hey, far be it from me to suggest that it's completely insane for a private citizen to be able to spark a nuclear exchange with North Korea!

Now you're moving the goalpost.

Do you understand the difference between:

- An intercontinental ballistic missile, and

- An intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear explosive device?

If I had one I'd shoot it at Montana or New Jersey or into the middle of the Pacific Ocean like the Air Force does a couple of times each year. The test shots are quite spectacular. People can sometimes see the trail from as far away as Tucson, AZ.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Too too funny...
Slack actually thinks that a foreign power would wait until the ICBM hits and go "Whew, no nuclear warhead in that...guess it was just some honest American which he was exercising his Second Amendment rights."

No argument is EVER too absurd for our "pro gun democrats."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. So the assumption is that if an ICBM was shot into North Korea from the US
it wouldn't start a nuclear exchange unless it had an actual nuclear warhead on it? I think somebody here doesn't understand how nuclear counterstrikes work. They don't generally wait for the actual mushroom cloud. But then, of course, Beloved Leader Kim Jong Il might be more patient and rational than most nuclear-capable governments, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. YOU'RE the only one talking about shooting anything at North Korea
I wouldn't do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. A) We have only your word for that.
B) The question didn't ask whether slackmaster should be able to own ICBMs. It asked whether the general public should. Whenever you make something available to the general public, you have to assume that it will fall into the hands of the most irresponsible, idiotic loonies around. This is why the more responsible gun owners are not the true test of private ownership of guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. Please let us know the moment that a lunatic builds a 'Z' engine model
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 07:24 PM by slackmaster
of a Minuteman 3 ICBM and launches it at another country.

Besides legality you have to also consider other factors that feed into availability of any potentially dangerous object. I don't believe it's likely that any deraged irresponsible lunatics have the money or the wherewithall to build a homebuilt rocket that is sufficiently large, powerful, reliable, and controllable enough to hit North Korea or New Jersey or any other potentially hostile power.

We don't have a law limiting the size of rockets a US citizen can build or own or launch (FAA regulations notwithstanding) and I haven't seen any evidence that we need one. We should continue to enjoy that freedom of choice unless someone can come up with a realistic, concrete, non-fanciful reason to take that particular liberty away. We don't make restrictive laws as a knee-jerk response to someone's paranoid fantasy about what someone who doesn't exist might do.

This is why the more responsible gun owners are not the true test of private ownership of guns.

We already have some pretty good laws defining classes of people who are not allowed to own firearms. Let's try enforcing them before we limit the choices available to the rest of us, who are a large majority of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. So you're really, actually going to make a stand
on the Second Amendment right of every American citizen to keep and bear his or her own InterContinental Ballistic Missile? Well, this has been entertaining - and enlightening.

The class-defining laws restrict only those already convicted of felonies and those already diagnosed as insane. They don't do jack to keep guns away from next week's criminals, undiagnosed loonies, blithering idiots, and people who think that everyone ought to be able to own an ICBM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. If you don't like the fact that ICBMs aren't regulated
Then maybe you ought to write letters to your elected representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. No argument too absurd for our "pro gun democrats"
Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"slackmaster
47. I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. It's a shame I can't quote your feelings on gun owners.
Ahh the memories. I wish I had gotten a screenshot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. When MrBenchley says something one-tenth as ridiculous
as saying that the general public should have access to ICBMs, you'll be sure to let us know, won't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Consider the source, max...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I would,
but the evidence is long gone.


What's wrong with ICBMs anyway? You still haven't even proved that they aren't available for the general public to own, for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Read the thread - if that's not asking too much.
Note for example that the question asks "Should . . . " not "Can . . . ".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. You're just upset
because your side is losing this poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. I don't actually have a "side" in this poll, Feeb.
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 07:17 PM by library_max
If the Nos win, it demonstrates that there are, in fact, common-sense limitations on the RKBA that even RKBAers have to admit.

If the Yesses win, it demonstrates that the RKBAers in JPS are, in fact, nucking futz, in that they would cheerfully give the general public access to ICBMs et al.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that dilemma (for you guys) was exactly what the original poster had in mind.

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Uh huh, suuuuuuuuure. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. Looks to me like you don't understand the current state of the law
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 07:55 PM by slackmaster
library_max wrote:

If the Yesses win, it demonstrates that the RKBAers in JPS are, in fact, nucking futz, in that they would cheerfully give the general public access to ICBMs et al.

You cannot "cheerfully give" to the general public something they already have. That's typical of authoritarian thought; the assumption that rights must be granted by government otherwise they don't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Too bad you have to use an ad hominem argument to make your point
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Uh . . . slack . . . what do you think my point WAS?
An argument is only ad hominem if the characterization of the disputant is irrelevant to the point. If, on the other hand, the characterization of the disputant is the point . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. Anyone who makes amateur psychiatric diagnoses over the Internet
is making an argumentum ad hominem.

Good night, max.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-04 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Thank you, Humpty Dumpty.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be masterthat's all."

From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibLabUK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. One comment comes to mind...
I'm pretty sure it would violate an awful lot of international treaties...

Does international law (as in those laws set out by treaties to which the US is a signatory) apply within the US?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. With Bush in the White House, the U.S. laughs at international law. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Keep in mind we're just talking about rockets
Edited on Thu Jul-22-04 07:26 PM by slackmaster
Not nuclear weapon-tipped ones.

BTW - I like the ICBMs they have in many places in Japan. Ice Cold Beer Machines!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibLabUK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-04 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #58
66. I disagree
""Keep in mind we're just talking about rockets""

With sophisticated guidance and re-entry systems.

An ICBM is not just your average dumb hobbyist rocket.

In the UK, it is illegal for a hobbyist to fit his rocket with a guidance or control system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. There are no such restrictions on amateur rocketry in the US
An ICBM is not just your average dumb hobbyist rocket.

Neither is SpaceShip One, but it was financed and designed and built completely in the private sector. The US government neither helped nor hindered the effort, other than the Federal Aviation Administration requiring a flight plan. Our society encourages innovation and rewards people who take risks and succeed.

In the UK, it is illegal for a hobbyist to fit his rocket with a guidance or control system.

That's a real shame, but maybe your much higher population density, lack of large areas of open space, and proximity to other countries justify it.

There's a nice set of high-quality copyrighted photos of SpaceShip One at http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/SpaceSh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slutticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-04 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Awesome pics!!!
I love the Beech StarShip!!!!

I've heard that aircraft is a treat to fly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. well, considering that there are 250,000 legal nfa weapons in the us...
and since 1934, only 2 have been used in a crime, I'd say the odds of somebody illegally using a legally owned RPG are pretty fucking slim....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. pert, RPGs are legal in most of the US.....
they're NFA "destructive devices". There's a $200 tax, but you certainly can own them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. The Second Amendment refers to...
...'arms'. The definition of arms at the time was limited to what a soldier normally carried into battle. I'm sure someone will find the quote I am referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot Donating Member (485 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. This one?
TENCH COXE (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
(Freemans Journal, 20 Feb 1778)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Not that one...
...but thanks for trying to help my tired memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Well, that'd be muskets and swords.
So forget about any firearm that you can load without a ramrod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cedarriver Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. OK, militia
This has been made much more complicated than needs be.

Militia is the same today as when the words where penned. Every able bodied man between the aqes of 18(?) and 45. Those are mandatory requirements being subjected on the people by the government. That is the authorization that allows the draft. Without the 2 cnd amendment the government would have not a single constitutional thread to be able to conscript soldiers (see civil war, and Viet Nam conflict.) And one of the previous posters is correct in stating that arms , means something you show up with when called. Its not so easy to get that SAM system loaded into your Prious and be at the meeting point on a moments notice.

Also, remember that the reason for the militia is 2 fold.
One: To defend the USA
Two: To defend the people against a standing army, in the control
of the government.

And as far as number two is concerned, the 2cnd amendment has worked flawlessly for more than 200 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. As far as number 2 is concerned,
the Second Amendment has been keeping the elephants away. You're familiar with that gag, right?

A: Why are you whistling like that?
B: I'm keeping the elephants away.
A: There isn't an elephant within a thousand miles of here.
B: See how well it works?

Every court decision that is still standing in the US that has considered the Second Amendment has been decided in favor of the gun control measure and against the gun owner. Every single one. So it's possible that your interpretation differs from that of the US courts, including the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swineguy Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. So gun owners don't exist in the USA?
Since every single time the courts have ruled against the private ownership of guns? There are alot of people breaking the law then. Including the Government officials that issue gun permits to purchase guns and local Sheriffs that issue concealed carry permits. There is a whole lot of law breaking going on, by the Government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
library_max Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Try to grasp the rather simple distinction
between something being allowed under law and something being protected by the Constitution. Private ownership of firearms isn't generally illegal (yet). That doesn't mean that it's Constitutionally protected. There are many places where spitting on the sidewalk isn't against the law, but that doesn't make it a Constitutional right to spit on the sidewalk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slutticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
18. LOL
I've always wanted to shoot skeet with RPG's or SAMs. You can heat them up in an oven first so that the missiles can lock on to them.

That would be freakin' awesome.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. You're being way too conservative
I want my Davy Crockett mini-nuke, and I want it now.



http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC