Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
Well, if the argument is that we need weapons to defend ourselves from a tyrannical U.S. Gubmint gone bad, we better start stocking up on some serious weaponry.
Cause the U.S. Gubmint has a few big guns at their disposal.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
Everything you listed is already legal except for the nuclear weapon and nerve gas and possibly the operational weaponry for the jet. I think we should allow the mfg to sell more full auto guns though. Everything else is fine the way it stands.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
How about we go with this. Exising law.
Now I have a question for you.
There are 2 things you gun grabbers want.
1. Assault Weapons Ban
2. High capacity magazine ban
We have clearly provided statistics that show the AWB will NOT reduce the number of deaths in this country. We have the FBI stating that the previous AWB did nothing to curb crime. We know that these guns are owned by tens of millions of Americans and used thousands of times for self-defense every year, yet they are used in less than 2% of murders per year.
We know that HCM Ban would NOT reduce the ability for a killer to kill. We know this because we have seen on this site MANY videos of people with limited round magazines shooting at an average rate of one per second including 3 reloads.
So since YOU want to change the law, and we KNOW that you don’t want to change the law to protect people or to reduce crime, YOU need to articulate your reason.
Liberals think all guns should be banned. They don't like any guns and are only doing the Biden[saying they are gun people to make their anti gun opinion more credible.] to try to make it seem like they are not anti gun. .
Thats a stupid generalization that has no base, that would be like me saying all conservatives are redneck idiots. Very few liberals want to ban all guns. Most just want common sense, something most conservatives lack, in the gun debate.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
There are fully operational tanks in the hands of citizens right now. Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle) owns a Russian MIG fighter jet. Machine guns are all over the place in the hands of very responsible citizens - About 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas - San Antonio Express-News Items like this are not inherently dangerous. They only become dangerous when a person misuses them.
A lot of explosives, poison gas, nuclear weapons, etc. require special storage or they can become dangerous without the action of a person using it. Other explosives like TNT as still available. They require a little more hoops to jump through to get them though. My father-in-law would blow up beaver dams with 1/4 sticks. Tannerite is a binary explosive and available for purchase at my local sporting good store. Yes, it is for reactive target shooting but there is nothing stopping a person from shooting 249 pounds of it. 250 pounds is illegal to set off without a licensed explosive expert on site.
You missed flame throwers. There are plans all over the 'net and not a single law against them.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
The intent of the 2A is a citizen force having capable arms to field in defense of community, self, and, if needs be, country. Heavy fire power, artillery, and such, is not practical for militia. Nuclear weapons and such...please. Lets be real. Militia, by definition, are not even capable of maintaining and operating modern air power and missile weapons, let alone fielding them. Militia are a small to medium weapons group. Therefore, I draw the line at readily available weaponry there.
The average citizen is constrained by budget. Rifles, handguns, shotguns are the bulk of private weapons. Some folks can afford heavy stuff like a 50,and there are a few who can afford title 3 stuff. The lines are drawn pretty well where they need to be.
I actually don't know anyone, personally, who advocates that weapons, such as you describe, be available at Big 5. The notion is silly. However, service style small arms, ala AR 15, are perfectly reasonable firearms for civilian use.
The intent of the 2A is a citizen force having capable arms to field in defense of community, self, and, if needs be, country. Heavy fire power, artillery, and such, is not practical for militia. Nuclear weapons and such...please. Lets be real. Militia, by definition, are not even capable of maintaining and operating modern air power and missile weapons, let alone fielding them. Militia are a small to medium weapons group. Therefore, I draw the line at readily available weaponry there.
The average citizen is constrained by budget. Rifles, handguns, shotguns are the bulk of private weapons. Some folks can afford heavy stuff like a 50,and there are a few who can afford title 3 stuff. The lines are drawn pretty well where they need to be.
I actually don't know anyone, personally, who advocates that weapons, such as you describe, be available at Big 5. The notion is silly. However, service style small arms, ala AR 15, are perfectly reasonable firearms for civilian use.
Well if my neighborhood started a militia, I am sure we could come up with money for a Russian fighter jet fully armed.
When the 2nd amendment was introduced they were pretty much using flint locks right. I don't think they envisioned rapid fire machine guns at the time. Why not just limit ownership to a musket and I am o.k with allowing anyone to own the type of weapon that was available at the time of the constitution. I guess maybe they had cannons too. Sure you can own a cannon as well. Has to be the same type that was available then.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
Were civilians aloud to own motors and cannons back in the day? We can start there.
I think it's safe to say that the term "arms" applied to personal firearms a person could carry, while at the level of what weapon systems and platforms state governments could own, there were no restrictions.
There are fully operational tanks in the hands of citizens right now. Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle) owns a Russian MIG fighter jet. Machine guns are all over the place in the hands of very responsible citizens - About 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas - San Antonio Express-News Items like this are not inherently dangerous. They only become dangerous when a person misuses them.
A lot of explosives, poison gas, nuclear weapons, etc. require special storage or they can become dangerous without the action of a person using it. Other explosives like TNT as still available. They require a little more hoops to jump through to get them though. My father-in-law would blow up beaver dams with 1/4 sticks. Tannerite is a binary explosive and available for purchase at my local sporting good store. Yes, it is for reactive target shooting but there is nothing stopping a person from shooting 249 pounds of it. 250 pounds is illegal to set off without a licensed explosive expert on site.
You missed flame throwers. There are plans all over the 'net and not a single law against them.
Nerve agents can be stored in a glass and are not dangerous at all unless you spill it on yourself or smell it. Most Nerve agents have low vapor hazards...you have to be pretty close for it to effect you...VX for example. So any responsible person could properly take care of VX. It is not inherently dangerous unless a person misuses it. A small vile of Nerve agent, in liquid form, is probably a whole lot less dangerous than an AK 47 in terms of how many people you could effectively kill at one time. Is that considered arms under the constitution? It is a weapon?
Where does it say in the constitution that you can own them only if they don't require special storage devices. I must have missed that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very few liberals want to ban all guns. Most just want common sense, something most conservatives lack, in the gun debate.