Banning shoulder-fired missiles
- Thread starter sleuth
- Start date
My sentiments exactly. And I also agree that we won't see a civil war in our lifetime - but only because we know enough to take precautions against it.Mikeinsmd said:
No, because Republicans do it as much as Democrats, but they're typically for keeping gun rights.2ndAmendment said:
Well, okay - me either. But it is interesting.Mikeinsmd said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I don't think that a shoulder launcher rocket is technically a firearm.
Speaking from a military point of view I don't think that civilians need access to those kinds of weapons at all. It's hard enough to keep them out of terrorist and upsurgent hands as it is. If you could just go buy them from the local gun store, the bodies of our soldiers would pile up by the thousands. Then there's another complication. Alot of the weapons that the military uses that are somewhat classified. Specifications and capabilities and such.
Speaking from a military point of view I don't think that civilians need access to those kinds of weapons at all. It's hard enough to keep them out of terrorist and upsurgent hands as it is. If you could just go buy them from the local gun store, the bodies of our soldiers would pile up by the thousands. Then there's another complication. Alot of the weapons that the military uses that are somewhat classified. Specifications and capabilities and such.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Well, I look at it like this: The only uses I have for a LOS rocket or bazooka are against the ice cream truck, people exceeding the speed limit on my street and driving like urban scum on 235, and those idiot kids in their rice-burning stereo-thumping POS. I don't imagine there'd be enough of a deer left to eat if I used it for hunting, and if the country goes to he!! then anarchy will ensue, causing opportunities for "appropriating" any weaponry necessary.
We need very little until such time as there is a need and if without the weapons to counter a tyrannical government we could easily become enslaved or over taken. Early citizens were allowed to own cannon, which were the kick-ass arms of the day. Times change and weapons have too, but the reason for the amendment hasn't changed at all. If we were actually invaded the need would be obvious.Mikeinsmd said:
Rraley, Premo = paid membership.
I thought it was a discussion as to if banning SFWs would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Besides there are at least two scenarios where the amendment becomes extremely important, one of protecting ourselves from internal abuses should a government turn upon the people and one of protecting against invasion from external enemies. You really were doing the fry thing in history weren't you?Mikeinsmd said:Right but our discussion was that the 2A was written so citizens could fight our own govt. if need be. Well he11, we elect them. I don't see us electing them then they turn on us.
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Alas KK, yes I was. I still gotta B in history, just didn't retain anything. I do know the words to the song "Battle of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton though....Ken King said:
My mind retains useless trivia.... In 1814 we took a little trip, Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon an' we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British at the town of New Orleans.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Charles...
Emphatically no. They are brilliant documents. Your statement says it all; 'amendments'.
They created a document with amendments and clearly spelled out the amendment process. It's an incredibly versitile, intelligent and useful piece of paper. The amendments are not commandments. They allowed for the future, future mindsets, future value systems.
All we need do is follow the process.
Now, as far as literal translation of specifically the 2nd, I have no problem whatsoever of seeing a time machined founding father taking the position that no, hell no, you don't need no right to no shoulder fired missiles.
He would come to this positon after study and some time to absorb what the nation had become from his time.
He'd see human nature had not changed. He would most likely be stunned by technology and, I think, take the position that many weapons are just to powerful for an individual to be responsible for.
The worst you could do in his day was blow up a home with a few cannon shot, not kill 100's with the flick of a switch.
He would also not tolerate the idiocy of gun control advocates who are clearly in favor of disarming everyone BUT the state.
That would scare the #### out of him.
Emphatically no. They are brilliant documents. Your statement says it all; 'amendments'.
They created a document with amendments and clearly spelled out the amendment process. It's an incredibly versitile, intelligent and useful piece of paper. The amendments are not commandments. They allowed for the future, future mindsets, future value systems.
All we need do is follow the process.
Now, as far as literal translation of specifically the 2nd, I have no problem whatsoever of seeing a time machined founding father taking the position that no, hell no, you don't need no right to no shoulder fired missiles.
He would come to this positon after study and some time to absorb what the nation had become from his time.
He'd see human nature had not changed. He would most likely be stunned by technology and, I think, take the position that many weapons are just to powerful for an individual to be responsible for.
The worst you could do in his day was blow up a home with a few cannon shot, not kill 100's with the flick of a switch.
He would also not tolerate the idiocy of gun control advocates who are clearly in favor of disarming everyone BUT the state.
That would scare the #### out of him.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yep...
And they fought a series of fights, including the legendary one, after the war was, on paper, over.
Did you know that?
And they fought a series of fights, including the legendary one, after the war was, on paper, over.
Did you know that?
Charles
New Member
You also said:Larry Gude said:
All we need do is follow the process.
Does that mean change the amendment to fit present day situations or is there a genuine fear that our military can turn against us? If we progressed, throughout our history, no better than Iran, Iraq, Somalia, etc., etc. then I would say OK, the document is not outdated. We have the vote now and don't need the cannon anymore. Personal protection from bad individuals is a totally (or should be) different matter.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I guess it could...
I mean, there'd have to be the process, super majority in both houses, signed by the Pres, pass the courts and then ratified by 2/3's of the states but...how would you word that?
"This gun yes, that gun no...".
So, no I don't see that but the mechanism is there.
To me, just as we say you can't falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, we apply rational thought. It is, to me, agreeable to most people that the harm done by causing a riot trumps your right to free speech.
It seems to me it would be agreeable by most people that the harm that can be done with a shoulder fired missile, either by you or if it is stolen, trumps your individual right to keep and bear arms.
I would think that a judge could make those arguments and rule that way and say 'yes, there is a 1st and 2nd amendment right but they do not and cannot apply in defiance of rather extreme circumstances such as these.'
Lincoln tromped all over the Constitution during our Civil War but it saved the Union. Better to follow the piece of paper absolutely and lose everything else in the process?
Better to allow people to die in a stampede to preserve a right to speech?
Better to allow a plane to be blown from the sky?
This same logic, however, fails when we are talking about Miranda and other insanity.
And there is the rub. A pro 2a person could sit down and say 'yeah, I can see a need for some limits' but then we face people who actually don't want limits, they want elimination. AND, to make it worse, they want ABSOLUTE rights for criminals who get to go free even with a dead body in the trunk if a procedure wasn't followed to the letter AND want no limits on all sorts of things they favor.
Look at abortion. Supporters want NO limits. They can tell me I don't need a flash suppressor or a trigger or a barrel or a magazine or a folding stock, but let me suggest something rational about their 'rights' being limited?
No trust. They earned mistrust. It's why they're so defensive; they KNOW how to take.
I mean, there'd have to be the process, super majority in both houses, signed by the Pres, pass the courts and then ratified by 2/3's of the states but...how would you word that?
"This gun yes, that gun no...".
So, no I don't see that but the mechanism is there.
To me, just as we say you can't falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, we apply rational thought. It is, to me, agreeable to most people that the harm done by causing a riot trumps your right to free speech.
It seems to me it would be agreeable by most people that the harm that can be done with a shoulder fired missile, either by you or if it is stolen, trumps your individual right to keep and bear arms.
I would think that a judge could make those arguments and rule that way and say 'yes, there is a 1st and 2nd amendment right but they do not and cannot apply in defiance of rather extreme circumstances such as these.'
Lincoln tromped all over the Constitution during our Civil War but it saved the Union. Better to follow the piece of paper absolutely and lose everything else in the process?
Better to allow people to die in a stampede to preserve a right to speech?
Better to allow a plane to be blown from the sky?
This same logic, however, fails when we are talking about Miranda and other insanity.
And there is the rub. A pro 2a person could sit down and say 'yeah, I can see a need for some limits' but then we face people who actually don't want limits, they want elimination. AND, to make it worse, they want ABSOLUTE rights for criminals who get to go free even with a dead body in the trunk if a procedure wasn't followed to the letter AND want no limits on all sorts of things they favor.
Look at abortion. Supporters want NO limits. They can tell me I don't need a flash suppressor or a trigger or a barrel or a magazine or a folding stock, but let me suggest something rational about their 'rights' being limited?
No trust. They earned mistrust. It's why they're so defensive; they KNOW how to take.
Toxick
Splat
rraley said:
A baby that was born before it's gestation is complete. They're usually smaller, lighter and frailer than babies who were carried to term, and oftentimes their underdeveloped lungs are not capable of sustaining them.
Toxick Jr. was almost a premo - but luckily they managed to suppress labor.
It's actually a premium member of the forums - who've paid for their accounts, and therefore have more benefits, and privileges here
itsbob
I bowl overhand
SFM's aren't the REAL problem.. we've cancelled the comanche because we were building it to be stealthy to prevent it from being shot down by SFM's and AA missiles.. but along comes Habib with his "dumb" RPG and our helicopters start falling out of the sky. STEALTH doesn't help against Habib.
Our Stinger, and the Soviet SA-7 and SA-14 are EXPENSIVE weapons and fairly controlled, the RPG on the other hand is VERY cheap, easy to manufacture, and can be found EVERYWHERE In the world, devastatingly effective, and I'm SURE some 7-11 guy probably does have a garage full of them in this country somewhere..and yes, in the middle east you CAN go to the local market and buy one, and I'm sure if you look hard and long enough you can probably buy one here somewhere too.
Our Stinger, and the Soviet SA-7 and SA-14 are EXPENSIVE weapons and fairly controlled, the RPG on the other hand is VERY cheap, easy to manufacture, and can be found EVERYWHERE In the world, devastatingly effective, and I'm SURE some 7-11 guy probably does have a garage full of them in this country somewhere..and yes, in the middle east you CAN go to the local market and buy one, and I'm sure if you look hard and long enough you can probably buy one here somewhere too.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Well we fired our guns but the british kept acoming.. ain't quite as many as there was a while ago.. fired once more and theybegan to runniing.. down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico!!Mikeinsmd said:Alas KK, yes I was. I still gotta B in history, just didn't retain anything. I do know the words to the song "Battle of New Orleans" by Johnny Horton though....
In 1814 we took a little trip, Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon an' we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British at the town of New Orleans.
BuddyLee
Football addict
I don't think we will see another Civil War in our time but I do think we will lose the top spot in the world 'super power' game within the next 50-70 years.vraiblonde said:I don't think anyone cares enough to have another Civil War. They don't even want to fight against terrorists - what makes you think anyone will want to fight their own government?
And I liked my summary better. Less reading.