Question for people obsessed with gun rights

[kratos12]

Should the general public be allowed to buy stinger anti-aircraft missiles for personal protection?

[Whisp]

1. sure.

and towns and counties should be able to purchase their own nuclear weapons.

[kratos12]

3. What if the towns or counties try to oppress you with those nukes?

Why are you against personal ownership of nukes to defend ones self from government overreach?

[Whisp]

4. then I get more nukes. its my gawd given right, isn't it?

[Recursion]

46. Buy up General Electric. You'll own several nukes.

That would take a good chunk of change, but you could do it.

You'll have to deal with DoE's requirements on storing them and keeping them secure, and you'll have to meet NPT obligations to keep them from falling into the wrong hands, but you could do it if you had the money.

[lepus]

11. Heck, If I can afford one, I should be able to own one.

While not really viable as a personal defense weapon, they are great for deterrence value.

[havocmom]

2. Hell, if private corporations have them to sell, I would think it's only fair.

[Whisp]

5. let the market rule, and all that jazz.

[Mudoria]

6. You post this again after a Mod locks the other?

[OhioChick]

8. Yeah...and worded it so well.

:eyes:

[Archae]

7. Heck yes!

I wanna Stinger so I can shoot down those well-armed ducks! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSSrJWOjias

[Moochy]

9. Only Corporate Persons should be given this right

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

12. Why shouldn't the public own them?

There are already laws against indiscriminate killing so what is wrong with having one?

[Raskolnik]

13. Question for people who re-post flame-bait.

Do you really think such a silly question has any relevance to a discussion about the 2nd Amendment?

[Ozymanithrax]

14. "Obsessed" is a negative term that you apply to an entire group...

Can you think of a more neutral way to discuss this issue?

[havocmom]

25. funny how some negative terms applied to an entire group seem to stay around here

while others get zapped so fast I can't even start my stop watch. ;)

[Ozymanithrax]

36. We are in the gun forum...n/t

[havocmom]

37. ah, yes, that would be correct. And some negative terms are allowed where others not

Forum location is not the problem when that is the case.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Why buy one when you can make one from old

paper towel tubes and M-80's???

[frebrd]

16. Sent directly to the "Ignored" list! eom

[jazzhound]

17. Disingenuous in the extreme. Unrecommended. NT

[SteppingRazor]

18. Oh what the heck. I'll play.

Of course people shouldn't be allowed to own stinger missiles. Neither should they be allowed to own atomic bombs. The point at which a weapon should be legal for civilian use is an entirely arbitrary one -- as are many lines drawn in the sand in law. One ceases to be a minor at 18. One may drive at 16. A fetus is considered "viable" after the first trimester, per Roe v. Wade, which means according to our government, life does not, in fact, begin at conception, as so many anti-abortion folks would say.

So, now that I've answered that absurd query, what was your point?

[shadowrider]

19. Un'recd for a plethora of reasons. n/t

[Ernesto]

20. I want land mines! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Make your own. It is fairly easy to do. N/T

[jody]

21. PA & VT both said the right to self-defense is natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable. What part

of that do you not understand?

RKBA is not limited to firearms but includes other types of arms as well.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. The second amendment says "arms" not "ordnance".

A heat seeking anti-aircraft missile is "ordanance".

[spin]

24. I can't use a stinger missile for self defense against a criminal ...

and I have no use for an hydrogen bomb or a nuclear hand grenade.

I have no plans to go to war against anybody.

BTW, I don't believe that I am "obsessed with gun rights". Perhaps if I actually was, I would answer "yes" to your question.

Gun rights are part of the Bill of Rights. I personally am far more interested in preserving the freedom of religion, speech and the press guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[PavePusher]

35. But you could use one for defense against tyranny.

Which is the core basis for the Second Amendment.

So I vote "Yes".

[Recursion]

43. You *could* buy a nuclear weapon if you bought up General Electric

You'd have to deal with the DoE's requirements of how you store and secure it, though, as well as international NPT obligations.

[Recursion]

44. Delete

D'oh. Didn't mean to self-reply.

[Francis Marion]

26. Question for you

To answer your question- I think that particular class of weapons is best kept by the military rather than by individuals. But I do think that people should be able to buy any personal weapon (firearm) in US service, which is consistent with the Founders' second amendment intent and understanding. You do not state your position on what arms are protected by the Second Amendment which is as curious as your nettled query.

Some questions for you: Should the general public be able to speak freely on an internet forum?

Because if allowed to speak freely, people might tell lies or propose dangerous ideas or commit crimes. Surely the unwashed public only 'needs' to use a limited set of words, bounded within reasonable restrictions, of course.

Better yet, free speech should be reserved only for degree-holding, licensed professors of rhetoric.

Hmmm. That sounds like a bad idea to you? What's wrong, are you obsessed with free speech rights? It's strange to stand upon the first amendment to hammer the second.

Why not extend equal trust, equal liberality of understanding, to our right to keep and bear arms?

What arms did the founders have in mind which the people should keep and bear uninfringed?
Simply these: Muskets and bayonets suitable for military service. Today, that looks like an M16 or an AK or even a hunting rifle. Militia did not muster with crew served weapons or field pieces; those were kept by the town or rarely by inviduals. But the clear connotation of 'arms,' in the Founders' language, is a military grade individual weapon. People could try to argue, "I want an M1 tank as my Second Amendment right!" I suppose, although I have NEVER heard such. To extend the Second Amendment to crew served weapons/bazookas/destructive devices could be debated. But only the most dishonest, cynical, and context-contemptuous disrespecter of the Bill of Rights dares to trample underfoot the plain gun rights of the people.

The fact is that the right to keep and bear arms- individual, military grade weapons- predates you and your contempt, and will endure long after. And I infer contempt from the framing of your question.

Thankfully, the extent of our free speech rights don't depend upon the illiberal bent of any one person.

[Euromutt]

38. Can I recommend a post?

Because this one's pretty much a thread-killer.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

28. Yes, but they won't admit it. nt

[jazzhound]

30. Instance #4,619 where you dishonestly attribute attitudes

to gun owners which they don't (for the most part) possess.

[rrneck]

31. Try some Windex,

it might help with the bullshit.

[Raskolnik]

32. Could you point out who at DU you believe subscribes to that position?

I'd like to mock them, and since you're obviously pretty sure about it, you must have some examples.

Thanks in advance.

[jazzhound]

33. A little present from me to you:

http://product.half.ebay.com/Attacking-Faulty-Reasoning_W0QQprZ821578QQtgZinfo

[SteveM]

51. Ah, the incredible, monstrous, dreaded THEY! All 80,000,000 of 'em nt

[rrneck]

29. Already got mine.

Unrec for stoopit.

[proteus_lives]

34. Come back when you have a grown-up question.

[benEzra]

39. How much do you actually know about the gun issue in general, or Federal firearms law in particular?

If you were familiar with the issue, you'd know that all missiles are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and those provisions have the full support of the NRA and pretty much everybody else. Ditto for the 76-year-old restrictions on all automatic weapons (including all assault rifles), the restrictions on guns easily convertible to full auto, the restrictions on weapons over .51 caliber (except shotguns), etc. etc. etc.

The gun control debate is about whether to further circumscribe the existing right of mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully purchase, own, and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms. Not missiles, not nukes, not explosives, and not any other BS red herring.

BTW, the answer to the BS question in the OP, for those obsessed with prohibitionist red herrings, is "no".

[AlinPA]

48. Deleted by author. NT

.

[aikoaiko]

40. I give you credit for replying at least once to your own thread.

Perhaps you would like to engage the others who so kindly responded.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. Obsessed?

That's an odd way to characterize people who believe the Bill Of Rights is a vehicle to guarantee the freedom of the citizens of the USA.

[slackmaster]

42. Unrec for "military armament straw man"

:nuke:

[Recursion]

45. Blackwater buys them (or similar AAMs)

So, yes, currently civilians can and do buy anti-aircraft missiles. There are just pretty severe regulations on how they can be stored and used.

[rusty_rebar]

47. Yes. NT

[gorfle]

49. On explosives.

Should the general public be allowed to buy stinger anti-aircraft missiles for personal protection?

Most pro-firearm folks probably agree that the right to keep and bear arms concerns small arms suitable for infantry use. Small arms are lethal, military-grade projectile weapons that allow the discriminate killing of targeted individuals. Likewise, most pro-firearm folks probably agree that the right to keep and bear arms is not about explosives or crew-served weaponry, nor nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms

A stinger anti-aircraft missile has little personal protection value, because individuals are unlikely to be assaulted by aircraft. Further, they are not a small arm as they are an indiscriminate explosive device.

[Callisto32]

50. A stinger is hardly personal protection.

So, your question is loaded, and thus invalid.

It's like asking "should baby killing knives be banned?"

It is designed to get you to say "of course not!" and not to get actual discussion.

This is bait, not discussion, or an invitation to discuss.

[SteveM]

52. Back in the 1950s, I visited an uncle in Tampa. His home was surrounded...

by a fence of 500 lb WWII-era bombs. All of a different bright color, randomly sequenced. Beat the usual trailer park stuff.









They were empty of explosives.

[guardian]

53. Question for people obsessed with car rights

Should the general public be allowed to buy large trucks for personal use? After all a large truck could be used to carry explosives, large amounts of contraband cigarettes, or driven into a large crowd at high speed killing numerous people.