RTKBA. To what end?

Look, the US has a long tradition of privately held weapons. From the Privateers, with their cannons, to the Gatling gun.

I remember reading about a store near Long Island where private citizens could purchase cannons, machine guns, explosives, and many other pieces of military hardware.

Ownership in itself is OK. It is the use that makes it criminal. You guys are sounding remarkably like the anti's.

No one NEEDS to own a (insert evil weapon name). After all I don't want one, can't afford one, or am afraid of them, therefore no one else should, either.

Hypocracy at it's finest.

Anything that one can use to defend the country is appropriate for ownership. If a group wants to get together and buy a tank, so be it. The only exception are weapons of mass destruction. By their very nature, they are not defensive weaponry. It is hard to imagine defending your home town by blowing it up with a nuke.
 
Last edited:
Ownership in itself is OK. It is the use that makes it criminal. You guys are sounding remarkably like the anti's.

You sound remarkably like somebody who thinks the issue boils down into two simply "for it" or "against it" groups. There aren't just "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" people. Like most issues in this world this one doesn't reduce easily into black and white.

Also, it's not as though I'm afraid of things like tanks or warplanes. It's just that if there's one group I trust even less than the government, it's corporations. I'm not fond of seeing them buy their own armies.
 
Yeah, because governments are so much more responsible with their armies. ;)

How many wars in the 20th century were started by governments and "public" armies, and how many conflicts were started by private armies?

Most wars are generally unprofitable, which is why private enterprise would have no incentive to wage them. Governments have no reason to consider profitability...after all, they're working out of the public pocket.

Public accountability? For waging ruinous wars? Are you kidding me? Microsoft's stockholders would quickly boot a management which involved the company in a 500-billion-a-year loss enterprise in the Middle East. We get a chance to boot our "public" CEO every four years, and chances are better than even he'll be replaced with an equally incompetent sock puppet.
 
who thinks the issue boils down into two simply "for it" or "against it" groups

It is that simple. Read the 2nd amendment. You are either for an individuals right to keep and bear arms, or you or not. Simple as black and white.
 
My understanding is that you can buy used tanks. You will need to pay the $200 tax on the main gun as it's over .50 caliber.

There are limits on some of the technology's for good reasons. Like radar and jammers that are on many fighter jets, I don't want to hear about airliners going down because of someones jet fighter.

Also the weapons covered in the second amendment are items COMMON TO SOLDIERS. So fully auto rifles and other weapons that are commonly used by foot soldiers are what its talking about.
Nerve gas is not a common weapon and neither are nukes or anti aircraft weapons. I can't see many people here wanting stinger missiles sold at all, there is just to much risk (like someone blasting a airliner) and little gain.

You can buy the stuff to armor a truck yourself if you have the know how. I don't think it would be street legal but thats not what we are talking about.
 
who thinks the issue boils down into two simply "for it" or "against it" groups
It is that simple. Read the 2nd amendment. You are either for an individuals right to keep and bear arms, or you or not. Simple as black and white.
Some of us have different definitions of "arms," at least as it pertains to the second amendment, than others. You'll find mine is more liberal that most yet obviously more restrictive than some. But if you need it put in black and white, I am most definitely "for" an individual's right to keep and bear arms. So obviously we must agree on everything, right?


I also like how Marko Kloos came in with the flying elbow off the ropes and made me feel at least a little silly regarding the whole "corporate army" argument.
 
It is that simple. Read the 2nd amendment. You are either for an individuals right to keep and bear arms, or you or not. Simple as black and white.
Not exactly. Two years olds are considered part of "the people" yet we don't arm toddlers. The mentally insane are still part of "the people" yet we rightfully bar them from having guns. Convicts are also "the people" but it's a no-no for them.

Tanks are "arms". Planes are "arms". Land mines and flamethrowers are "arms" but no one should be able to pick one up at the local shop. Nuclear weapons are also "arms" but none of us has the right to "keep and bear" a suitcase nuke.
 
No, I trust the government that is controlled by millions of voters more than I trust a private company that is controlled by a single individual or a group of stockholders.

Do you really think the US government is controlled by "millions of voters"? Those people (liberals, neo-cons or downright communists) can and do have their way with us with each bit of power they sieze (often in the name of "democracy" or "freedom")

Private businesses are not like in movies were some eeeeeeevil CEO wants to take over the world and control everybody or get everybody addicted to cigarettes or horde all money and power for themselves like Scrooge McDuck in a money bin like you see in so many modern James Bond movies or other hollywood works.
They just want to make money. If they have a private army, or if you and your neighbors have a private army it keeps the government in check. What little we allow the government to have (If we truly do have a federal system) will be kept from running roughshod over our liberties if the people are organized to protect themselves and the country as a whole will be better off from foreign invasion. If any individual with an army within the country tries a coup, then they will be met with resistance from the government military AND from other individuals and/or armies.


Yeah, because governments are so much more responsible with their armies.

How many wars in the 20th century were started by governments and "public" armies, and how many conflicts were started by private armies?

Most wars are generally unprofitable, which is why private enterprise would have no incentive to wage them. Governments have no reason to consider profitability...after all, they're working out of the public pocket.

Public accountability? For waging ruinous wars? Are you kidding me? Microsoft's stockholders would quickly boot a management which involved the company in a 500-billion-a-year loss enterprise in the Middle East. We get a chance to boot our "public" CEO every four years, and chances are better than even he'll be replaced with an equally incompetent sock puppet.

there ya go. Way ta go Mr. Kloos!
 
flamethrowers are "arms" but no one should be able to pick one up at the local shop

I seem to remember reading that flame throwers are not restricted by Federal law. So you can buy one at the local shop, if the local shop sold them.
 
Zak Smith said:
Perhaps in the suburbs, but what if you operated a space ship? Nuclear weapons might be normal. Think outside the box.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but if you're saying that the weapons a person has a right to own depends on the surroundings he lives in, I understand that and think it's a reasonable argument. An apartment dweller would be endangering his neighbors if he kept C4 in his pad, but a farmer would not be.


BTW: Does anyone else think America would be best served if we had a quasi-universal citizen militia system similar to that of the Swiss? Perhaps we would have to keep a professional Navy and Air Force, but what if our standing infantry forces were disbanded and replaced with military training, with citizens keeping the weapons in their homes?
 
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but if you're saying that the weapons a person has a right to own depends on the surroundings he lives in, I understand that and think it's a reasonable argument. An apartment dweller would be endangering his neighbors if he kept C4 in his pad, but a farmer would not be.
Exactly.
 
If the Founders had not intended to recognize the fact that private folks had the means and ability to procure privately owned field guns, naval cannon, warships, and other "large scale" implements of war, to who were they going to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

Possession of everything short of nuclear weapons or other weapons not subject to international treaties signed and ratified by the United States should be without regulation. Penalties for misuse of same should be draconian.

Nuclear weapons are subject to international arms limitation treaties. Loose cannons are not tolerated in such negotiations and so nukes are a special case for civilian prohibition. Really only antis bring up "So should you own a nuke?" as a canard from the argument over one reasonably owning a destructive device or a fully automatic rifle, which in no way bear resemblance to an indiscriminate area destruction weapon.
 
As a proponent of Civilized Warfare or Just War a nuclear weapon is in itself an intentional attack on civilians and an attack on the land itself (render's land unusable and poisonous for decades) and should be illegal for use by both civilian and military
 
I did see a show on cable about a year ago. It was about guys who collect armor and artillery. They were firing the guns. Looked functional to me.

One guy owned a SCUD missile, but in order to get it he had to disable it.
 
What are arms, under the 2nd Amendment?

This comes up every so often, and while most people tend to agree that small arms are covered (as long as they agree the 2nd A is valid at all), but tend to draw the line at artillery, tanks, planes, and especially nukes.

Some people go a little farther in their thinking, including tanks, cannons, and combat aircraft believing in the "sword and every terrible weapon of the soldier" being included in the concept, as determined by our founding fathers. But Generally, as a matter of "common sense", they draw the line at nukes (or other weapons of mass destruction).

Anyone advocating private ownership of nukes is immediately shoved onto the trash heap of ideas, and their words ignored, by both sides, as it is just such a ridiculous concept. But is it really?

People instantly fixate on the idea of a disturbed individual whith their own nuke in their apartment, and the devastation it would cause if detonated. Truly a horrid scenario, but really, how reasonable is it?

Cannon, mines, tanks, combat aircraft, etc. all these things are sold by our Govt, and allowed (under restriction) to be owned by provate individuals. If they have the funds. Indeed, ALL our arms are allowed to us only on the approval of the Govt. Our rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns are all "approved" for our ownership by the Govt. Our 2nd Amendment right is the reason Govt is required to approve our ownership, but make no mistake, approve it does. Otherwise, we get prosecuted. Our Govt has a system and sticks to it, making it expensive and difficult for individuals to own anything larger than individual (or crew served automatic) weapons, but there is no outright prohibition, other than local prohibitions in specific areas.

You can own a tank, and anti tank missle, land mines, bombs, even a battleship, if you can afford it, and follow the Govt. regulations. ALL LEGAL. Expensive, awkward, difficult, officially discouraged, yes, but not against the law.

Now, nukes are another matter. The Govt has never allowed nuclear weapons on the open market. Special Nuclear Material (the heart of the nuke) is not legal for sale or private ownership in this country (or any other I know of).

Nukes may fall under the 2nd Amendment in principle, but under our framework of law, you can neither buy nor build one, legally. So including nukes into discussion of the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose, save to distract from the reality of discussion.

We do own nukes, collectively, through our ownership of ALL Govt property. And we do have control over them, through our system of Govt, and the control of elected officials over the military. What we do not have is direct personal access or storage by private individuals, nor should we. Nuclear weapons (and chemical/biological ones) are determined by us (through our Govt) to be strategic weapons, not tactical ones, and therefore rightfully not under the direct posession of private individuals.

I do disagree with those who believe that people should by restricted on what they can own based on where they live. Somebody brought up the situation where they were ok with a farmer owning dynamite, but not an apartment dweller having some C-4. Leaving aside the fact that C-4 is more stable (and therefore "safer") than dynamite, inferring that someone whop lives in an apartment is more of a risk than a farmer would seem to me to be prior restraint on the indivdual's rights, a prejudice backed by the force of law. Communities may certainly determine their standards for safe storage, and use, but an outright ban on ownership is a violation of civil rights.

It is the lazy way for Govt to provide an illusion of safety. And it exists in many places all over this country, with thousands of gun control laws. All taking the lazy way out, and all providing nothing more than an illusion of safety.
 
There are a few tanks and jet fighters in private ownership, but none are currently fully operational.

Check this place out, it's not too far from you: http://www.aaftankmuseum.com/

Everything in the museum is his own private collection. When I was there a couple years ago about 70% of the tanks he had were fully operational, weapons included and he was working on getting the rest working. Plus he has a REALLY nice class III room with his private weapons in it also.
 
Leaving aside the fact that C-4 is more stable (and therefore "safer") than dynamite, inferring that someone whop lives in an apartment is more of a risk than a farmer would seem to me to be prior restraint on the indivdual's rights, a prejudice backed by the force of law.
Someone who lives in an apartment is more of a risk because the fact that he lives in an apartment puts him in close proximity with a lot of other people. If Farmer Joe blows himself up along with his barn because he wanted to play with dynamite, I don't give a ****. However A guy living on the third floor of an apartment building playing with dynamite would kill his neighbors as well.
 
There seems to be a lot of people here unsure of freedom.

Why are so many of you distrustful of your fellow honest citizen(s)?
 
Back
Top