Stinger Missles-Where do we draw the line?

[sdlrodeo]

Wow, the letter from Connelly is disturbing. In it he says: "...should high-powered, military-style firearms with large-capacity magazines – which were used in the D.C. sniper murders, the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown – be readily available to the general public? Does the Second Amendment apply to the FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher, a personal portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile platform capable of downing commercial aircraft? Clearly such weapons are not intended for hunting, nor are they appropriate for use in home or self defense. "

Read more: http://vagunforum.net/post146682.html#p ... z2IAHTj0R7
(see this post: http://vagunforum.net/post146682.html#p146682)

Yes, I think it is written in an insulting manner. However, it does bring up an interesting point. I think it is a topic that is overlooked by the pro-gun community: Where do we draw the line?

Let's examine it from one point of view...

We believe in High Capacity Mags and ARs, etc. One of our arguments is that the bad guys will have these items/weapons so we should have them in order to defend ourselves as a force multiplier. We ALSO argue that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from its government. The government has tanks/fighter jets/Surface to air missles/etc. So in order to stay with the same line of reasoning, SHOULDN'T we have access to the above equipment as a force multiplier if not at least a force equalizer?

Here is another point of view...

I also like the argument that I am a law abiding citizen. Therefore I should have the right to own such weapons because I'm innocent until proven guilty. I believe this logically follows the same thought process that says I should have a right to own a fast car or a private crop dusting plane (as long as I can afford to buy one of course). There is a lot of damage that can be done with a crop duster/fast car/bus/motorhome/semi/chainsaw etc. But I'm legally allowed to own them. It is only AFTER I break the law with them that they can be taken away.

So, I ask you, Where DO we draw the line?

Please let the intelligent conversation begin...

(This is also posted in another topic but I didn't want to hijack that thread)

[GeneFrenkle]

What says we can't if one has the money, the space, and the desire? You can buy tanks (http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm), fighter jets (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=10072), missles - i dunno, but why not? wouldn't that be a DD? Pay the tax, get the stamp (LOL)

[sdlrodeo]

What says we can't if one has the money, the space, and the desire? You can buy tanks (http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm), fighter jets (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?catid=10072), missles - i dunno, but why not? wouldn't that be a DD? Pay the tax, get the stamp (LOL)

I'm admittedly uneducated on this subject so I'd like to know:

Can one buy heavy artillery/Tanks/Fighter Jets AND the ordinance used to arm them? Because lets be honest, an unarmed Fighter jet wouldn't be nearly as cool as a battle ready fighter jet.

I agree though, If I was rich enough, I'd like to have some of those toys.

[SpanishInquisition]

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[VACoastie]

Largest weapon civilans can own is the 40mm Bofors. Yes, you can buy the ammo if you can find it.

It's purpose? Anti-aircraft. So in theory, I can own something something better than a friggin stinger missle. I could own something that could rapidly take down multi-aircraft.

But guess what? They already have a background check for that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Absurd arguments are just that, absurd. "If AR-15s are legal, what's next, nuclear weapons?" Please.

I'm all for a civilian to lawfully have access to whatever an infantryman has access to in our armed services. I also believe if you have the cash you can go ahead and buy a tank. They're not DOT approved so you'd better have some private land to drive it on. Ammo costs extra.

An average American can spring $1000 for an AR. Fewer people can spring $100k for an old ass tank. Even fewer people can spring $500k for an old ass jet. Even fewer people can spring whatever a Stinger missile costs. And even fewer can spring for whatever a nuke would cost. So the idea that if you make ARs and AKs legal that people will run around the streets with nukes is crazy.

[GeneFrenkle]

http://www.urban-armory.com/cart/prodde ... ?prod=40mm

all yours for $145,000

Careful, the site looks worse than GeoCities....

[VACoastie]

SB - Common sense goes a long ways man. That's why a lot of these democrats I think aren't going far next election cycle. I'm 100% with ya on that one.

GF - Oh, you mean for the price of a house! I'd much rather have me a house.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Absurd arguments are just that, absurd. "If AR-15s are legal, what's next, nuclear weapons?" Please.

I'm all for a civilian to lawfully have access to whatever an infantryman has access to in our armed services. I also believe if you have the cash you can go ahead and buy a tank. They're not DOT approved so you'd better have some private land to drive it on. Ammo costs extra.

An average American can spring $1000 for an AR. Fewer people can spring $100k for an old ass tank. Even fewer people can spring $500k for an old ass jet. Even fewer people can spring whatever a Stinger missile costs. And even fewer can spring for whatever a nuke would cost. So the idea that if you make ARs and AKs legal that people will run around the streets with nukes is crazy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yep. That's the deal as i see it. If you look at the 2nd Amendment and it's "legislative history" with any intellectual honesty, it's clear that the founders intended for the people to be armed AT LEAST as well as the army. In fact, most of them didn't want the US to have a standing army at all anyway; they wanted the people/militia to BE the army. So that takes us pretty much exactly where you just said: You can keep and bear any arms you can afford to buy. So as I see it, we've already let them erode the Second Amendment all we ought to stand for.

[sdlrodeo]

Absurd arguments are just that, absurd. "If AR-15s are legal, what's next, nuclear weapons?" Please.

I'm all for a civilian to lawfully have access to whatever an infantryman has access to in our armed services. I also believe if you have the cash you can go ahead and buy a tank. They're not DOT approved so you'd better have some private land to drive it on. Ammo costs extra.

An average American can spring $1000 for an AR. Fewer people can spring $100k for an old ass tank. Even fewer people can spring $500k for an old ass jet. Even fewer people can spring whatever a Stinger missile costs. And even fewer can spring for whatever a nuke would cost. So the idea that if you make ARs and AKs legal that people will run around the streets with nukes is crazy.

First of all, I agree that it is not feasible nor likely nor good for the average law abiding citizen to own a nuke. I also agree that people will not run around the streets with nukes if ARs and AKs are legal. I realize Nukes are the extreme. But just saying "the 'nuke' argument is absurd" does not answer the question of what should cap the firepower abilities of the usual citizen. I think we should come up with a legitimate counter argument.

I believe this ties in nicely with the argument against the thought that "The 2nd amendment was written when they were fighting with muskets".

My point is, IF we are to argue the 2nd amendment is there for the people to protect themselves from their own government and the government IS armed with nukes, then by our own argument, the 2nd amendment wouldn't bar nukes. Again, I'm going with the technicality of the "citizens protecting themselves from their government" argument. I'm not advocating for people to have nukes.

You say "I'm all for a civilian to lawfully have access to whatever an infantryman has access to in our armed services."

that is a great talking point. What can an infantryman access? Again, I'm ignorant on this subject. I'm pretty sure they have select fire capability but can he get a grenade launcher? Manpad? I'm not trying to be a douche, I just don't know.

I do agree with you about money being the deciding factor however I do believe that cost is determined by supply and demand. ie; full auto. Since NFA limited availability the cost went up. So if the NFA was not in place, would there be that many more full autos available and cost be a lot lower? I would argue that would be the case. Now the question is, should every law abiding citizen (LAC) be able to purchase one if they could afford it? I'm in no way a select fire hater. I personally don't own a select fire for a few reasons, one I can't afford the initial purchase and two I can't afford to feed one to properly enjoy it.

This is just food for thought.

[SpanishInquisition]

Not every infantryman carries a GL, a RL, or a Claymore. Often a squad member has one or more of these, but not every soldier.

So... yeah, they have access to them.

[GeneFrenkle]

Presuming you could satisfy all the regulatory requirements, have the appropriate taxes, training, staff, permits, etc. Why couldn't you have one if you met all the criteria for having one? Even the military has to follow regulatory requirements.

Just being argumentative.

[sdlrodeo]

I'd like to clarify that yes if I could afford to have a stinger/tank/etc I would. However I'm not sure that every LAC should have one. Notice I didn't say they should definitely not have one, only that I'm not sure they should.

My main concern is the huge number of stolen/lost weapons.

Stolen? I don't feel an LAC can really be blamed as long as they took reasonable precautions to secure them but what is reasonable? Is the $89 gun "locker" safe at dicks a good way to lock up your rifle? Sure, but your stinger?

Lost? yup, that happens too. Consider the number of people who 'mistakenly' bring their firearm that they 'forgot' was in their carry-on bag for a flight. There are some dumbass LACs out there. There are also a lot things that can just happen like the LEO who left his Carbine on the trunk of the cruiser and took off. Or how about the large number of armed airline pilots (squared away/trained/responsible) who lose their weapon?

Point being that what if these people were losing stingers? Not that they don't come up missing even from the military.

[sdlrodeo]

Presuming you could satisfy all the regulatory requirements, have the appropriate taxes, training, staff, permits, etc. Why couldn't you have one if you met all the criteria for having one? Even the military has to follow regulatory requirements.

Just being argumentative.

I totally agree. However, there are arguments against the NFA which set up regulatory requirements, taxes, permits.

[sdlrodeo]

Not every infantryman carries a GL, a RL, or a Claymore. Often a squad member has one or more of these, but not every soldier.

So... yeah, they have access to them.

Thanks for the clarification.

So should every LAC have access to Claymores?

[dorminWS]

Presuming you could satisfy all the regulatory requirements, have the appropriate taxes, training, staff, permits, etc. Why couldn't you have one if you met all the criteria for having one? Even the military has to follow regulatory requirements.

Just being argumentative.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It can't be that the American public couldn't handle the ordinance. Time was when every sh!theel ragamuffin guerilla in Afghanistan had a stinger and knew how to use it well enough to whup the Russians. Mining, construction and other businesses make daily use of much more destructive explosives in this country under regulations that don't make it impossible. So it just boils down to what regulatory burden the government chooses to impose.

[SpanishInquisition]

...So should every LAC have access to Claymores?

The sword? Absolutely!

As to the mine, it's every bit the defensive weapon as the others, has to be set up well in advance, is manually fired, is short range, and it's more single fire than a single shot shotgun since it destroys itself when used.

[ShotgunBlast]

Not every infantryman carries a GL, a RL, or a Claymore. Often a squad member has one or more of these, but not every soldier.

So... yeah, they have access to them.

Thanks for the clarification.

So should every LAC have access to Claymores?

Whether it's a Claymore, tanernite, a pipe bomb, IED, or anything else that goes boom, sure. However, there are consequences.

[lonestarag]

Just a reminder that the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of hunting...

[ShotgunBlast]

But just saying "the 'nuke' argument is absurd" does not answer the question of what should cap the firepower abilities of the usual citizen. I think we should come up with a legitimate counter argument.

I specifically did not put a cap on the firepower an average citizen should be limited to and instead put it as a baseline by comparing it to military infantrymen. The thing about caps (you can have semi auto but not full auto rifles) is it makes it harder to raise the cap when the next iteration of firearms technology rolls out (microwave guns or whatever).

I believe this ties in nicely with the argument against the thought that "The 2nd amendment was written when they were fighting with muskets".

I think anyone who thinks that must believe our founding fathers were a bunch of idiots. There were also no radio/tape/CD, text messages, television, or Internet when the Constitution was drafted but our first amendment rights transfer to those mediums as well. These amendments aren't about limiting the people, they're about limiting the government.