Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
 

I stumbled across an article that I found to be pretty interesting, related to this conversation with Supreme Court Justice Scalia:

Aside from the very literal interpretation of "bear," it brought up a question of justification for widespread firearms ownership - specifically the idea that the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect individuals from government powers or tyranny.

If that is the case, a nation of hunters, range enthusiasts, sport shooters and tacticool weekend warriors sporting Glocks, ARs and Mossbergs is not really going to be a match for a tank batallion or column of infantrymen (to say nothing of the Air Force).


So, should anyone be allowed to own mortars, RPGs or SAM launchers (provided they have the financial means to purchase them)? If not, what limitations should be imposed?

I bet they had cannons on those ships...

Yes, you should be able to own an RPG. Or a gatling gun. Or whatever else.

.....So long as you are willing to take full legal responsibility and liability for it, that is. If the RPG is used in a terrorist attack, it's your ------- personal responsibility, no one else's.

Up untill the mid-1930s I want to say, even a 10-year old could mail order a gatling gun. Bring that back, I'm perfectly fine with it, so long as the owners accept responsibility for their weapon choices.

When I bear the burdens of being an admin, I'm not hand-carrying anything.

"O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence."

I feel that once weapons reach a certain level of destructive capability there should at the very least be a stringent license that must be attained to legally possess these weapons. Then that raises the question of should a citizen own a SAM or other highly destructive what would their responsibility be to properly secure this equipment so that it does not end up stolen by someone who should not have control of it. The argument can be made that citizens who legally carry firearms rarely commit crimes with them but by making much more destructive weapons accessible to the public also opens the flow for easier access by criminals buying them illegally. I think it is a very thin line to tread. I also think if the country went into a revolution style war you might be suprised at just how well average citizens would be able to ward off the military. I am not saying it would be easy or that casualties would not be high but history has shown that people tend to find ways to adapt to overcome especially when the military would be heavily outnumbered by normal citizens.

Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

I've never been terribly impressed by this argument, to be honest.

Yes, of course, Bubba in his hunting camo and carrying his .30-06 bolt action is no match for a modern soldier.

But then, an armed civilian population probably wouldn't need to win an conflict in the same way that we think of a standing army winning a conflict, would it? The civilian population need only to exhaust the political will and/or popular support for the military action. The name of the game is resistance, inflicting notable (even if nominal) losses for the other side, attempting to outlast the enemy's will to fight; not going toe-to-toe, trading blows, and attempting to win outright in a show of force.

Am I wrong? We're talking about insurgency here, not modern military warfare.

Does the 2nd Amendment assure that people will be armed against foreign invaders? Look at how Iraq destroyed the Kurds and how the Syrian rebellion maintains the respect of their opposition. There is a genuine need for weapons like ARs, 30 round magazines, and sniper rifles along the TX/Mexico border, and anywhere a flash-mob strikes.

I'm not sure how I feel about an RPG.

lol @ RPG

Do you have any idea of what I can make in my kitchen???

A lovely risotto?

I want some mango mahi.

That's a fair point. I guess it's tough to say because the scenario is, so far as I can think, pretty unprecedented. I can't seem to think (off the top of my head) of any instances in which a totalitarian or dictator came to power - edit: or attempted to stay in power - using the force of a national military of even a fraction the scale of he US military.


The closest proxy might be modern day Syria?

Under current US law, I get the impression that it's perfectly legal to own a hand cranked Gatling gun with about the same restrictions as a conventional rifle. I got to fire one of those at a gun range a couple years ago (It is possible its owner had a special permit, but as one has to keep operating the mechanism, it appears it legally doesn't meet the legal definition of a machine gun.). Muzzle loading cannons have even fewer restrictions as they don't meet the legal definition of a firearm in certain laws. And nobody's really bothered to close the loopholes since you'd be nuts to use either one for ordinary criminal purposes.

I've always liked to think that the military itself would be divided in such a conflict.

Agreed...in what proportion I'm sure would depend on the nature of the conflict, but I'd imagine that under almost any circumstances, there'd be at least a significant number of soldiers that would refuse orders to fire on American citizens.

Then again, who knows?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1344284288

The premise of the debate within this thread is rendered useless by the fact that Scalia is a scumbag shithead disgrace of a justice who should just resign and go crawl into a hole and ---- off.

Ask me how I really feel though. :P

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 guess to stay on topic. scalia is a shithead disgrace and to lawyer that statement instead of taking it in it's true context is a bullshit liberal move. another person who doesn't deserve to live here because they don't appreciate and understand what people did for us to have what we have and be the people we are today. It's mind boggling how people can vote and appoint these douchebag fucktards.

I dont' think the authors of the constitution really intended the right to "bear" arms to only apply to weapons easily carried.

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.