Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
08-06-2012, 05:21 PM
#23
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
My grandfather is a retired airforce colonel and my other grandfather was army special forces. I've had discussions with them before about it. the word Freedom is near and dear to our country. It's plastered everywhere and engraved in our heads. For any United States Citizen to jeopardize that especially a military soldier would be sacrilegious. Although these days i'm starting to think the sheep are straying and our idea of freedom is quite tainted.
I would like to think I agree with that.
So you do support the ability of a civillian to purchase anti-aircraft and/or anti-tank weaponry?
Reply
0
0
08-06-2012, 07:22 PM
#24
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
You only have to read some of the other works by the Founding Fathers to know this. The Constitution wasn't the only important document written 200 years ago. The easy read is The Federalist Papers, but just about anybody back then who laid quill to parchment has some endearing quote about how important it to have a well armed populace to ensure both the "group" and "individual" securities of the nation.
Reply
0
0
08-06-2012, 10:24 PM
#25
Somebody who could afford a decent supply of modern heavy weaponry to outfit their own squad, say their immediate neighborhood, would also have the dough to afford the property and infrastructure to safely store and maintain that weaponry. National Guard Armories are in residential neighborhoods and it's no big deal.
In the situation where somebody had the cash to do it as well as the military, I would completely support a private citizen owning as much of the "good stuff" as they wanted.
Reply
0
0
08-06-2012, 10:34 PM
#26
Back in the day, there were weapons you carried in your hands (rifles and pistols), and weapons that required a horse to pull them(cannons and mortars). I'm unsure whether the authors of the Constitution could envision an F-22.
We could walk this to it's farthest extent and just ask the question of whether or not average citizens should be allowed to buy nuclear weapons in order to completely destroy the government if they get out of hand.
Reply
0
0
08-06-2012, 11:00 PM
#27
I still keep coming back to the fact if the gov't shows up at your doorstep to take something you're willing to die to keep, they have to decide it's worth killing you over to achieve what they're trying to accomplish in the taking.
I'll reference the Great New Orleans Gun-Grab after Katrina. When the word went out to the various armed agencies out performing clean-up work to start confiscating guns, there was a huge dissent within the various National Guard factions about whether the order from the Mayors order should be followed. Of course, all the local and "regular" police/cops went apeshiz took everything in site.
There is a great story out there somewhere about a National Guard Major who basically told his entire command structure they could go f-themselves if they thought he was going to take peoples guns.
The point is, it's almost certainly not going to be US Army or State National Guard tanks rolling down your street, that's just not the way they come after you. It's going to be a couple squad cars out to enforce some new "zoning violation", and the police are there to make sure nothing bad happens as a semi pulls up with a 40ft backhoe to demo your house (or infringe on your rights, take your guns, whatever). At that point, if you're willing to die for what they've come to take, they will need to kill you to take it. That's when you need your guns, and your neighbors.
I'll reference the Great New Orleans Gun-Grab after Katrina. When the word went out to the various armed agencies out performing clean-up work to start confiscating guns, there was a huge dissent within the various National Guard factions about whether the order from the Mayors order should be followed. Of course, all the local and "regular" police/cops went apeshiz took everything in site.
There is a great story out there somewhere about a National Guard Major who basically told his entire command structure they could go f-themselves if they thought he was going to take peoples guns.
The point is, it's almost certainly not going to be US Army or State National Guard tanks rolling down your street, that's just not the way they come after you. It's going to be a couple squad cars out to enforce some new "zoning violation", and the police are there to make sure nothing bad happens as a semi pulls up with a 40ft backhoe to demo your house (or infringe on your rights, take your guns, whatever). At that point, if you're willing to die for what they've come to take, they will need to kill you to take it. That's when you need your guns, and your neighbors.
Reply
3
3
08-06-2012, 11:45 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: chicago
Posts: 693
Total Cats: -33
The responsibility to secure a weapon by its owner should go up as the deadly nature of the weapon goes up. the way you secure a knife is not the same as a gun.
I'm not sure what is reasonable security for a missile or other very dangerous weapons but armed guard and security gates seem to do a reasonable job for the military. if people want to live in a isolated area and set up a military base protected by rockets should that be allowed? personally I don't really have a problem about it however it could raise more complex issues.
what happens to people who are born inside the gates of such a guarded community? will they be free to join the outside world and leave whenever they want? how can that freedom be guaranteed in such a closed off community that likely does not want the government inspecting their stockpile? should it even be the responsibility of the government to under take such a task. so it becomes a tricky issue, with such a high level of responsibility to protect the weapons, other freedoms are sacrificed. like a soldier whose job it is to protect people and secure military assets must make many personal sacrifices.
I think it would be hard to argue a single person could sufficiently secure a stockpile of surface to air missiles and even if a group owns 100 rockets or whatever, the US military would crush them if the ---- hit the fan so in the end what is the point.
I'm not sure what is reasonable security for a missile or other very dangerous weapons but armed guard and security gates seem to do a reasonable job for the military. if people want to live in a isolated area and set up a military base protected by rockets should that be allowed? personally I don't really have a problem about it however it could raise more complex issues.
what happens to people who are born inside the gates of such a guarded community? will they be free to join the outside world and leave whenever they want? how can that freedom be guaranteed in such a closed off community that likely does not want the government inspecting their stockpile? should it even be the responsibility of the government to under take such a task. so it becomes a tricky issue, with such a high level of responsibility to protect the weapons, other freedoms are sacrificed. like a soldier whose job it is to protect people and secure military assets must make many personal sacrifices.
I think it would be hard to argue a single person could sufficiently secure a stockpile of surface to air missiles and even if a group owns 100 rockets or whatever, the US military would crush them if the ---- hit the fan so in the end what is the point.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 02:10 AM
#29
This is just a stupid idea.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Now on the question
Sure everyone should have RPGs, 40mm grenade launchers. Heavy machine guns(everyone should have an old ma deuce in their pickup. Bet you could have some fun with a Dillon minigun if you were drunk or pissed off at a high school football stadium
Hell, I could landmine my yard or ring it with claymores. A 60/81/120mm mortar would be fun. Neighbors/local business pissing you off?drop a few rounds on them then drive away
They should just give military surplus away to citizens
They should just stock hundreds of bricks of C4 and blasting caps at the supermarket-come on big explosions are FUN.
No one would ever get hurt right? Everyone would keep tight control over their inventory and be well trained. ---- disappears from secure lock ups all the time. You think suburban houses are safe? Think the fire department is going to want to run into save your house if there is a question of a bunch of high explosives hidden under your bed?
What about a bunch of VX gas. Sure I can store it as safely as the military.
Couple of tactical nukes. If everyone has a nuclear weapon then we'll all be safe from the gubbment.
Obviously an exaggeration, but if you want to live in Mogadishu then move there.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Now on the question
Sure everyone should have RPGs, 40mm grenade launchers. Heavy machine guns(everyone should have an old ma deuce in their pickup. Bet you could have some fun with a Dillon minigun if you were drunk or pissed off at a high school football stadium
Hell, I could landmine my yard or ring it with claymores. A 60/81/120mm mortar would be fun. Neighbors/local business pissing you off?drop a few rounds on them then drive away
They should just give military surplus away to citizens
They should just stock hundreds of bricks of C4 and blasting caps at the supermarket-come on big explosions are FUN.
No one would ever get hurt right? Everyone would keep tight control over their inventory and be well trained. ---- disappears from secure lock ups all the time. You think suburban houses are safe? Think the fire department is going to want to run into save your house if there is a question of a bunch of high explosives hidden under your bed?
What about a bunch of VX gas. Sure I can store it as safely as the military.
Couple of tactical nukes. If everyone has a nuclear weapon then we'll all be safe from the gubbment.
Obviously an exaggeration, but if you want to live in Mogadishu then move there.
Reply
1
1
08-07-2012, 09:37 AM
#30
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I'll reference the Great New Orleans Gun-Grab after Katrina. When the word went out to the various armed agencies out performing clean-up work to start confiscating guns, there was a huge dissent within the various National Guard factions about whether the order from the Mayors order should be followed. Of course, all the local and "regular" police/cops went apeshiz took everything in site.
[...]
The point is, it's almost certainly not going to be US Army or State National Guard tanks rolling down your street, that's just not the way they come after you. It's going to be a couple squad cars out to enforce some new "zoning violation", and the police are there to make sure nothing bad happens as a semi pulls up with a 40ft backhoe to demo your house (or infringe on your rights, take your guns, whatever).
[...]
The point is, it's almost certainly not going to be US Army or State National Guard tanks rolling down your street, that's just not the way they come after you. It's going to be a couple squad cars out to enforce some new "zoning violation", and the police are there to make sure nothing bad happens as a semi pulls up with a 40ft backhoe to demo your house (or infringe on your rights, take your guns, whatever).
My impression is that the police, on the otherhand, are much more likely to take an "us versus them" mentality of a civillian population.
That, to me, goes towards kaiser's point of how incredibly unlikely a scenario it is for a totalitarian dictator to come to power in the USA and for armed citizens to then have to displace them.
Gun ownership is alsways a tricky issue for me as I struggle with an inherent bent toward elitism. I remember when I "qualified" for my concealed carry permit. I had been shooting pretty regularly at the time and brought my SIG P226. I put 10 rounds through the bullseye (~2" group), then another 10 rounds through the "9" (another ~2" group).
Meanwhile, most of the other targets looked like they had been sprayed with birdshot. Still, as long as you got most of your rounds on paper, you qualified. I honestly think it was tougher to get a driving license... and I am genuinely undecided on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 10:07 AM
#32
This is just a stupid idea.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Your fairly standard response is of somebody who has no idea how much firearms legislation passes through the hands of our various government representatives every year.
Without the constant focused efforts of groups like the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, Calguns, VCDL, and dozens of other national and local pro-2A groups, the left would quickly and neatly institute a national registry, an intrusive and complex permitting process, and restrict private citizens from owning anything more than single-shot .22lr and 20ga for the purposes of hunting only. Every single piece of firearms legislation is one step closer to disarming the masses. You cannot think of this issue as something that is just happening today or in the next couple years... it's something that has been happening for a couple centuries. People just like you and me were having this exact same discussion 20 years ago, 40, 80 years ago... and without the actions of individual citizens supporting the lobby groups, we'd be down to slingshots by now.
The longstanding battlegrounds are California, New York, and the City of Chicago.
The goal of the anti-2A groups is a complete ban of all firearms, do not get sucked into their wishy-washy rhetoric of "We support the 2nd Amendment, but it must be "reasonable". The Brady Campaign has openly said many times that their goal is outright banning. They have a calculated approach across many angles, nibbling, nibbling, nibbling. If they can't get the law they want outright, they have about 20 other methods of making it such a burden on the individual that nobody can afford it, or there's no place to do it, or there's nobody to sell it to them, or the law is so vague that the police have no clue what's legal or not... etc.
For example... the below is CURRENTLY BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
Senate Bill 249 – Semi-Automatic Component Ban – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD NEXT WEEK.
SB 249, as amended, would make a small but profound change to the definition of what constitutes a detachable magazine for a semiautomatic firearm. By doing so, hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles, which were legally sold in California over the last decade, would become illegal on July 1, 2013. SB 249 also has no provisions to allow permitting, licensing or reimbursement for the loss of valuable property. Worse yet, the bill doesn’t require a public notice program to advise owners of this change in state law. Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations. If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest! SB 249 is a pure anti-gun bill and MUST BE DEFEATED.
Senate Bill 1221 – Hunting Ban – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD THIS WEDNESDAY.
SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs. Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues to be practiced across the country. Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years. Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs. The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers. Biologists and other wildlife experts determine regulations and bag limits, just as they do with other hunting seasons.
Senate Bill 1366 – Lost and Stolen Reporting of Firearms
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD THIS WEDNESDAY.
SB 1366, introduced by state Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), would require every person to report the theft or loss of a firearm he or she owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost. Law-abiding gun owners should not be made a victim twice.
Assembly Bill 1527 – Open Carry Ban (of unloaded long gun)
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
AB 1527, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44), would expand on last year’s ban on open carrying of an unloaded handgun to also include unloaded rifles and shotguns.
Assembly Bill 2460 – Ban of Law Enforcement Transfer of Firearms
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
AB 2460, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-9), would ban law enforcement officers from transferring handguns that are not on California’s approved “roster” to anyone but law enforcement officers. Currently, California law allows for the transfer of firearms that are not on the approved "roster" to be transferred to law-abiding civilians. These transfers must go through a licensed firearms dealer and are only transferred when the new civilian owner has passed a criminal background check.
Senate Bill 1315 – Local Regulation of Firearms – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
SB 1315, introduced by anti-gun extremist state Senator Kevin de León (D-22), is just a stepping stone to completely destroying California’s firearms preemption law. Firearms preemption laws are in place to standardize firearm laws across the state. This critical law keeps law-abiding gun owners from being placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another. SB 1315 would authorize Los Angeles County to enact and enforce an ordinance or resolution that is stricter than state law regarding the manufacture, sale, possession or use of any BB device, toy gun, replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm and that expels a projectile that is no more than 16 millimeters in diameter.
Reply
1
1
08-07-2012, 10:47 AM
#33
The irony of all that bullshit regulation is how little it does to decrease or deter gun related crimes. Just look at all the gang activity in L.A. Criminals don't give a ---- if it is illegal because they are already planning to break worse laws. All these laws accomplish is dearming law abiding citizens and diminishing their ability to lawfully defend themselves.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 10:57 AM
#34
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
The responsibility to secure a weapon by its owner should go up as the deadly nature of the weapon goes up. the way you secure a knife is not the same as a gun.
I'm not sure what is reasonable security for a missile or other very dangerous weapons but armed guard and security gates seem to do a reasonable job for the military. if people want to live in a isolated area and set up a military base protected by rockets should that be allowed? personally I don't really have a problem about it however it could raise more complex issues.
what happens to people who are born inside the gates of such a guarded community? will they be free to join the outside world and leave whenever they want? how can that freedom be guaranteed in such a closed off community that likely does not want the government inspecting their stockpile? should it even be the responsibility of the government to under take such a task. so it becomes a tricky issue, with such a high level of responsibility to protect the weapons, other freedoms are sacrificed. like a soldier whose job it is to protect people and secure military assets must make many personal sacrifices.
I think it would be hard to argue a single person could sufficiently secure a stockpile of surface to air missiles and even if a group owns 100 rockets or whatever, the US military would crush them if the ---- hit the fan so in the end what is the point.
I'm not sure what is reasonable security for a missile or other very dangerous weapons but armed guard and security gates seem to do a reasonable job for the military. if people want to live in a isolated area and set up a military base protected by rockets should that be allowed? personally I don't really have a problem about it however it could raise more complex issues.
what happens to people who are born inside the gates of such a guarded community? will they be free to join the outside world and leave whenever they want? how can that freedom be guaranteed in such a closed off community that likely does not want the government inspecting their stockpile? should it even be the responsibility of the government to under take such a task. so it becomes a tricky issue, with such a high level of responsibility to protect the weapons, other freedoms are sacrificed. like a soldier whose job it is to protect people and secure military assets must make many personal sacrifices.
I think it would be hard to argue a single person could sufficiently secure a stockpile of surface to air missiles and even if a group owns 100 rockets or whatever, the US military would crush them if the ---- hit the fan so in the end what is the point.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 11:12 AM
#35
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
The irony of all that bullshit regulation is how little it does to decrease or deter gun related crimes. Just look at all the gang activity in L.A. Criminals don't give a ---- if it is illegal because they are already planning to break worse laws. All these laws accomplish is dearming law abiding citizens and diminishing their ability to lawfully defend themselves.
gun violence was reduced with DC lifting the gun ban.
Chicago/Detroit are still sh-tholes with all the crazy laws they have.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 11:20 AM
#38
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
This is just a stupid idea.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Now on the question
Sure everyone should have RPGs, 40mm grenade launchers. Heavy machine guns(everyone should have an old ma deuce in their pickup. Bet you could have some fun with a Dillon minigun if you were drunk or pissed off at a high school football stadium
Hell, I could landmine my yard or ring it with claymores. A 60/81/120mm mortar would be fun. Neighbors/local business pissing you off?drop a few rounds on them then drive away
They should just give military surplus away to citizens
They should just stock hundreds of bricks of C4 and blasting caps at the supermarket-come on big explosions are FUN.
No one would ever get hurt right? Everyone would keep tight control over their inventory and be well trained. ---- disappears from secure lock ups all the time. You think suburban houses are safe? Think the fire department is going to want to run into save your house if there is a question of a bunch of high explosives hidden under your bed?
What about a bunch of VX gas. Sure I can store it as safely as the military.
Couple of tactical nukes. If everyone has a nuclear weapon then we'll all be safe from the gubbment.
Obviously an exaggeration, but if you want to live in Mogadishu then move there.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Now on the question
Sure everyone should have RPGs, 40mm grenade launchers. Heavy machine guns(everyone should have an old ma deuce in their pickup. Bet you could have some fun with a Dillon minigun if you were drunk or pissed off at a high school football stadium
Hell, I could landmine my yard or ring it with claymores. A 60/81/120mm mortar would be fun. Neighbors/local business pissing you off?drop a few rounds on them then drive away
They should just give military surplus away to citizens
They should just stock hundreds of bricks of C4 and blasting caps at the supermarket-come on big explosions are FUN.
No one would ever get hurt right? Everyone would keep tight control over their inventory and be well trained. ---- disappears from secure lock ups all the time. You think suburban houses are safe? Think the fire department is going to want to run into save your house if there is a question of a bunch of high explosives hidden under your bed?
What about a bunch of VX gas. Sure I can store it as safely as the military.
Couple of tactical nukes. If everyone has a nuclear weapon then we'll all be safe from the gubbment.
Obviously an exaggeration, but if you want to live in Mogadishu then move there.
Flash-mob murder:
Milwaukee Flash Mob Attempts to Murder Two Women After Robbing Store : Greenville Dragnet
home invasions:
Man Fatally Shot During Home Invasion In Sharon - Courant.com
Dr. William Petit, lone survivor of horrific Conn. home invasion, remarries - NY Daily News
3 held in D'Iberville home invasion - SFGate
I also like where you asserted us gun owners would shoot-up a football stadium. Maybe you're the one we need to keep away from guns. I assume you're unarmed, what do you do when someone breaks into your home and starts tying people up? Do you accept it as the price you pay for a higher-state of consciousness? Half this country decided the need to protect yourself and others went away for some reason.
Reply
0
0
08-07-2012, 11:22 AM
#39
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Police: 7-Year-Old Involved In Violent Home Invasion In Juniata « CBS Philly
time to outlaw rocks, sticks, and plants!
“They hit her in the face with a rock, they used rope and also sticks and a potted plant,” Lt. John O’Hanlon explained.
Police say the three suspects, described by the victim as black juveniles, ran away with the victim’s purse. Police were eventually able to identify the suspects as 7, 10 and 12-year-old boys.
Police say the three suspects, described by the victim as black juveniles, ran away with the victim’s purse. Police were eventually able to identify the suspects as 7, 10 and 12-year-old boys.
time to outlaw rocks, sticks, and plants!
Reply
0
0
