Should Americans be able to have unrestriced access to all types of weaponry?

Should Americans have access to heavy weaponry?

  • No. Too dangerous for ordinary citizens

    Votes: 20 10.9%

  • No. We can't be trusted with anything larger than 50 caliber.

    Votes: 7 3.8%

  • Yes. It would make no difference if we could own them.

    Votes: 156 85.2%
  • Total voters
    183
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
I've been thinking about this for quite some time.

What would be the problem with ordinary citizens owning rocket launchers, Anti aircraft guns, artillery, tanks, grenades etc...?


Murder, arson, vandalism and mayhem are already illegal why would possesion of larger armaments cause people to ignore those laws?

Gasoline, glass bottles and rags are not illegal and I haven't heard of any molotov coctail attacks recently.

If people want to riot, kill indiscriminately, cause billions in property damage, loot and rape indiscriminately they will.

See 1968 and 1992 and various smaller ones in between.

Is there a valid argument as to why Americans should not have
access to heavy weaponry?
 
Is there a valid argument as to why Americans should not have access to heavy weaponry?
Click to expand...


It wigs out the Government. Oh wait, you said a VALID reason.

Ummmm...Uhhhhh...Hmmmmmm, I may have to get back to you on that. I cannot think of one reason that I should not be allowed to own a Browning M2 or 1919A6 (for example) without paying exorbitant prices and undergoing a violating background check.
 
If the Second Amendment constitutes a last protection against governmental tyranny, it follows that the "well-regulated militia" (i.e. every able-bodied citizen) cannot be denied access to every military implement necessary to defeat a hostile army...foreign or domestic. That means everything from handguns to crew-served weapons and artillery is covered under the Second Amendment. It makes no sense to say that the citizenry doesn't have the right to own military ordnance, unless you completely ignore both the intent and the wording of the Second Amendment.
 
If one had the resources and the millions of dollars to pour into the manufacture of WMD. It would be doubtful that there would be the will to use them.


So as unlikely as it would be... sure if you could set up a billion dollar facility to make weapons grade plutonium and the hundreds of scientists and technicans needed You would indeed be allowed to have an H bomb on your dresser table
 
Uhh... does this include depleted uranium shells, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear and thermonuclear devices?
Click to expand...
Yes, the government is composed of american citizens. If I have the money to own and maintain one why not?

If you draw the line at CBN, why would it be unreasonable for antis to draw the line a lot closer to home? The 2nd amendment either means what it says or it doesn't, there is no inbetween. Rights are natural god given gifts, loaned to the government. If the government has the right to own CBN then I certainly do because I loaned that right to the government.
 
Absolutely.

The bigger question would be the money question. I have the greatest admiration for Mike Dillion from Dillion Precision, and his collection; he’s probably the closest to a civilian having privately owned military weapons….but he’s a millionare.

I know Reed Knight of Knight’s Manufacturing Company probably has some neat toys, and he’s most likely not having any cash flow problems.

That aside, I don’t see why not.


Of course a multi megaton device would kind of useless… one trick pony. Hard to double tap.
 
OK WMD's are out!

Interesting tho, the vote as I write is 100% for ''anything goes'' ..... fair enough I say ... but with the caveat that we are talking about responsible people.

None of us would be I feel any more of a threat with access to about anything, than if we were limited to mere .22's.

However, in this ''terrorist'' atmosphere we live in now ....... would be hard to envisage this happening!:D
 
Well, I just gave you your first "No" vote - but your questions are slanted (i.e. not objectively worded), so I had to pick the closest I could find to what I wanted to say. I think there is real danger to society in having WMD, explosives, etc. scattered around like grass-seed. The danger comes, not from the responsible owner, who can probably be trusted to use, store and care for his ordnance in a proper way, but from those who will get drunk, or allow their kids access to the stuff, or in some way screw up. Then, they have in their hands the means to kill a large number of others, or cause damage out of all proportion to the "nuisance value" of the idiot owners themselves.

I've posted my take on the 2A before: I think it can reasonably be interpreted to cover any weapon that can be fired by a human being from the standing position, accurately, with no explosive or incendiary ammunition. This would cover a .50 caliber rifle, for example, but not a mortar or RPG7.
 
I agree my question was not objective. It was not meant to be.

I just wanted to know how people felt about it.
 
I had to choose the middle option but that is not really what I feel. Private citizens should not have nukes but they should be allowed full auto, short bbl shotguns, switch blades, short rifles, hi-caps etc.

No they shouldn't be allowed to have WMDs but anything short of a M1 Abrams tank is O.K. with me.
 
Americans should be able to own anything as long as it can be used somewhere without extreme unintended danger to the enviorment, people or wildlife or presents an uncontrolable hazard. This leaves out any WMD.

If I had the money and desire I should be able to own a 155 mm cannon and the ammunition for it. I would have to comply with safe storage regulations(couldn't hardly keep that stuff in the basement, might make the neighbors nervous!) for the powder and projectiles.

It'd be really neat to truck something like that out to a big ranch in Texas or Montana, maybe rent time at a military post like Camp Grayling, Michigan.

Paperwork? In an Ideal world we wouldn't need any, but we don't live there. No more than currently required for full-auto weapons would be enough.

Nice to dream about anyway.

Don in Ohio
 
All this talk about WMD is silly.

They are only weapons because people choose to manufacure them in a way where they can cause massive causualties.

There is no market for WMD and no above the board company would ever sell anthrax or plutonium.

Think of it this way...prohibition never stopped anyone from doing anything bad.

Look at Tim McVeigh... everything he used was legal.
 
I have to agree with Preacherman; any weapons are fine with me so long as they are not CBN, or explosive (RPGs, mortars, artillery, rocket launchers, mines, grenades, C4, TNT, missiles, bombs, etc)
 
If you murder someone then you should die for it. I really don't give a damn what kind of weapon was used.
Let everyone own anything they want but when they prove they can't handle being an honest citizen then lock 'em away and give ME their guns :)


I think the Constitution means that you can own anything you darn well please. Ben Franklin bought himself a cannon FYI :)


And was crime really all that much worse prior to 1934? I don't think so.
 
We here in the US have the 2nd Amendement to guarantee (Though the antis dispute it) our right to be armed. But why stop at our shores? If our right is based, as we like to say, on our basic right to defend our own lives, why shouldn't citizens of other countries also have the same right? Are their lives less valuable than ours? We sometimes quote verses from the Bible to justify our right to self-defense, but the Bible isn't an
American book, it was originally written by a bunch of nomadic arabs, then translated into Greek, then Latin and all the subsequent languages.

RKBA is for everyone.
 
"Bear arms" can be construed to mean many things. I think it means anything that you could operate and carry alone. That is if you could reload it alone, fire it alone and carry it (without a vehicle) alone then it is okay.

A machine gun COULD be operated alone, although it rarely is, and is thus okay. A tank however requires at least two people, probably three. And you can't "bear" the cannon/tank. A 105 Howitzer could be operated alone. But you can't "bear" it without somekind of outside help (other people, vehicle). A Light Anti-Tank weapon can be carried ny one person and requires one person to operate it. So it's okay by me.
 
I think it should apply to all man (by himself) portable small arms under a reasonable caliber. Maybe .50 is too small for limit, but something around there.

But it's not that I think "we can't handle anything over .50" I just think that is a good definition for what an "arm" is...
 
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the Power To: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...

Look up what a Letter of Marque was back in the 1700s. It was essential an "authority given to private persons to fit out an armed ship and use it to attack, capture, and plunder of enemy merchant ships in time of war". Notice how the Constitution doesn't say that the Letter needs to be granted to only a non-citizen. So IMHO the Constitution recognized that people back in the 18th century could own battleships, which was pretty high on the WMD scale back then.

What does this mean today? Hell if I know! At least I should be able to own a M1A1 Abrams or an A-10 Warthog, if I can come up with the cash!!

Have Fun - JohnDog
 
i think that rpgs and mortars and artillery should be cash and carry items.

HE ammo should require an explosive ordinance handling course and a certification that has to be renewed every X number of years.
 
I just wanted to point out that a lot of military hardware causes an excessive amount of pollution and environmental damage therefore a greater proliferation of this hardware can and will have significant environmental implications. Not necessarily an argument for or against, just something to consider.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top