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.
And the laws banning us from owning them are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment was written so that the citizenry could be armed so as to fight off and overthrow tyrannical government.
Yeah, but in the 18th century, the main intent for having an armed citizenry was to fight outside forces. I fully support the 2nd Amendment, but I'm not one who forgets to include the beginning, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." There's a reason that's in there. You should look it up.
Quote:
If our government has war planes, the the 2nd Amendment allows us to own anti-aircraft missile systems. If our government has nuclear arms, then the 2nd Amendment allows us to have nuclear arms too.
You have never fired a Stinger, so naturally you don't understand it requires two people.
You don't know how to perform maintenance on a Stinger missile. You'd have to hire others, which would cost you a lot of money.
I suppose your solution to that would be the Affordable Missile Maintenance Act.
Naturally, Basic Income will have to be modified so that people can have a Stinger and not feel stigmatized because they have a lower Standard of Living than others.
Or you could just distribute Stingers like needles and condoms. Or, you could have Obamamissiles.
Very simply...
Mircea
You have never fired one apparently, it does NOT require two people. Standard US military procedure calls for two people-the navy's procedure calls for a three man team, but it CAN be fired by one person, and some other countries procedures has just one person doing so.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
It's funny how many people here think the OP is all about that particular missile system, and whether or not they could afford it!
The OP question is an excellent one. Already it's flushed out into the open quite a few true extremists.
Do people want the amendment taken so seriously and stupidly literally, that it would essentially cause the downfall of the very nation the Constitution formed? A nation that works better at satisfying basic needs AND allowing for the accumulation of wealth by most individuals, than any in all of history?
Are all Constitutional rights absolute at all times? For one example, does the right of free speech allow a madman to threaten the life of one of your children with impunity? And before you say, "my gun will protect my child," let's assume that the sociopath in question is hidden from you, but that the police would likely find him ...... IF it were against the law to directly threaten people's lives? Since it wouldn't be against the law if the right to free speech were absolute, the police wouldn't need to look for him.
Or how about the classic "yelling 'fire!' in a theater" brought up in an old Supreme Court case involving this very issue?
You have never fired one apparently, it does NOT require two people. Standard US military procedure calls for two people-the navy's procedure calls for a three man team, but it CAN be fired by one person, and some other countries procedures has just one person doing so.
As usual you mistake a guideline for a law.
Um, I reviewed this manual prior to publication at TRADOC.
When the Stinger team first receives a The Stinger weapon-round and IFF interrogator...
When Stinger weapons are issued, and sufficient time is not available to perform all the checks listed in the technical manual, the team chief and gunner must, as a minimum, make the checks listed on the following pages. This does not mean that the other checks listed in TM 9-1425-429-12 should be overlooked, if time permits.
The team chief should be close to the gunner’s side to insure that he is not endangered by the weapon’s backblast. The Stinger gunner, as well as the team chief, must have a firm understanding of the basics of weapon operation prior to conducting an engagement.
Prior to engaging targets, the Stinger weapon must be readied for action. As a starting point, assume that the Stinger team is in position with its basic load of weapons.
The first step in a Stinger engagement is visual detection of the target. This may be done by either member of the team. A Stinger team may be warned of approaching aircraft by the forward area alerting radar (FAAR) system or the early warning broadcast net.
The Stinger team receives the warning on the FM receiver on the target alert data display set (TADDS) or on the R-442 auxiliary receiver. In any case, the target location must be made known to the gunner. When warning of the approach of unknown aircraft is received, the Stinger team can narrow its search sector to the general direction from which the aircraft is coming.
Is there some part of "team" you don't understand?
Are you stating that you willingly intend to violate safety and operational procedures?
Sounds like a great reason to infringe your "right" to a Stinger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan
Tanks require infantry in urban environments. In open warfare, tanks are intended to fight other tanks.
All you had to say was, "I've never been in the military."
Other than Saddam Hussein, who on Earth would be frickin' stupid enough to engage in open warfare?
US and British tanks were rolling across the open plains of Iraq without infantry support?
Wrong answer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
Yeah, but in the 18th century, the main intent for having an armed citizenry was to fight outside forces.
A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information.
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the People and the States are armed to rebel against a tyrannical government.
Ever hear of the "Revolutionary War" (snicker)?
That would be an example of an armed citizenry rebelling against a tyrannical government.
I guess they were handing out condoms in school instead of teaching the origins of the Constitution...
Well, we're not willing to risk millions of lives and economic disaster now are we?
As for my stance on abortion, I'm not anti-life.I'm not pro-abortion. I support women having the choice, because all choices should be available. However, the less abortions there are, the better.
But the choice to own a nuclear weapon shouldn't be available? Your beliefs are inconsistent.
Um, I reviewed this manual prior to publication at TRADOC.
When the Stinger team first receives a The Stinger weapon-round and IFF interrogator...
When Stinger weapons are issued, and sufficient time is not available to perform all the checks listed in the technical manual, the team chief and gunner must, as a minimum, make the checks listed on the following pages. This does not mean that the other checks listed in TM 9-1425-429-12 should be overlooked, if time permits.
The team chief should be close to the gunner’s side to insure that he is not endangered by the weapon’s backblast. The Stinger gunner, as well as the team chief, must have a firm understanding of the basics of weapon operation prior to conducting an engagement.
Prior to engaging targets, the Stinger weapon must be readied for action. As a starting point, assume that the Stinger team is in position with its basic load of weapons.
The first step in a Stinger engagement is visual detection of the target. This may be done by either member of the team. A Stinger team may be warned of approaching aircraft by the forward area alerting radar (FAAR) system or the early warning broadcast net.
The Stinger team receives the warning on the FM receiver on the target alert data display set (TADDS) or on the R-442 auxiliary receiver. In any case, the target location must be made known to the gunner. When warning of the approach of unknown aircraft is received, the Stinger team can narrow its search sector to the general direction from which the aircraft is coming.
Is there some part of "team" you don't understand?
Are you stating that you willingly intend to violate safety and operational procedures?
Sounds like a great reason to infringe your "right" to a Stinger.
All you had to say was, "I've never been in the military."
Other than Saddam Hussein, who on Earth would be frickin' stupid enough to engage in open warfare?
US and British tanks were rolling across the open plains of Iraq without infantry support?
A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information.
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the People and the States are armed to rebel against a tyrannical government.
Ever hear of the "Revolutionary War" (snicker)?
That would be an example of an armed citizenry rebelling against a tyrannical government.
I guess they were handing out condoms in school instead of teaching the origins of the Constitution...
Mircea
Amazing how your massive ego drives you to quibble over semantics and post this much nonsense that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT OF THE THREAD.
I think the government has to allow ownership under the 2nd, but they can require certified training, so when the feds come knocking at the door and ask where you got you certified training you can say: BUK-U
I don't even want guns to be confiscated. I'm in favor of background checks and required training. If you're a law-abiding citizen, what's the big deal? Too lazy to fill out a little paperwork?
I'd go for that so long as it's also for voting, collecting welfare and border patrol stops.
I'm pretty sure you're getting the Russian Buk missile system confused with the bukkake 'missiles' that were fired at you that one time at band camp.
But either way, the odds of anyone being able to actually buy and maintain a Buk missile system make your scenario unlikely. HIGHLY unlikely.
Now, let's say that Boris -- or whoever your Russian operative friend is -- can rig up a Borrego Missile system -- would you buy THAT? Surely you know what it is, right?
It's a portable missile system, powered by a motorized scooter. It's the future of war, I tell you!
Lol! And the right to free speech means it's ok to yell fire! in a crowded theater. .
LOL, this STUPID argument? Really? The crime isn't using your free speech, it is using it to knowingly and intentionally create a dangerous situation.
Or is it ok to create a panicked exit of the theater as long as you don't use the word "fire"? Heck it is more of a fraud issue than a 1st amendment one.
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.
And the right to free speech means it's ok to yell fire! in a crowded theater. .