The Bigger the Deadlier!

[acptulsa]

They can purchase those, but under strict regulation from the government and no ammunitions or working weapon systems are allowed in those people's hands, so the government keeps us safe by halting working big guns.

Like the way the government of New York City keeps citizens safe so they won't be shot nine at a time by gunmen? Oh, wait. The government not only allows them to be shot nine at a time, it provides the guns and the gunmen to do it! How wonderful to have a full service government to provide us with hot lead and other such luxuries. Who knows if a private citizen would ever get around to shooting nine New Yorkers for us without government help?

God is worthy of your faith. Men are not.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I am a major collector of military antiques and so I know some folks who have some strange military weapons in their collections. We are talking tanks, bazookas, flame throwers and I even know someone with a vintage jet fighter. Not a single one of them has ever gone on a rampage with it. I think people who responsibly own items such as this should not be punished for the mistakes of a few. By outlawing ownership of higher grade weaponry you are only cutting off those who will abide by the law because the criminal element, should they feel like acquiring something like a tank of bomb, will do it regardless of what the law says.

Secondly, this is something which should be on an individualized basis. If someone has a tank and decides to use it stupidly to the point it is a threat to public safety than you rely on the courts to punish and/or restrict them as an individual instead of taking the right of ownership away from everyone.

 

[pcosmar]

We hold the government responsible for its actions that it takes by using elections.

That would be extremely funny if it were not so sad.

Have you been paying attention?

 

[low preference guy]

The people in governmet are just people, they are not special or any different than you or I. They do not get some magical power just from being "government".

a lot of people have a religious belief in government and see it as some kind of God that can magically transform bad people into good.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They can purchase those, but under strict regulation from the government and no ammunitions or working weapon systems are allowed in those people's hands, so the government keeps us safe by halting working big guns.

Private.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am a major collector of military antiques and so I know some folks who have some strange military weapons in their collections. We are talking tanks, bazookas, flame throwers and I even know someone with a vintage jet fighter

Have a buddy of mine that had one of these (got about 15 hours flying it, what a dream):

He had his eye on one of these, a Soviet era Suhkoi SU-27 a couple years back, but never went through with it.

Too bad, then I could have been at least in the ballpark with Danke.

 

[XNavyNuke]

I had an interesting discussion in Political Science class recently and the professor asked an interesting question that I could not answer, where do we put a limit on arms? I know most of you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

Couldn't answer, or wouldn't answer. There is a difference. Get used to this line of question. It is a classic example of an interdisciplinary question posed by someone overeducated in their own field. If you answer from a political point of view, the professor is proficient in all of the common responses. However, based upon history the answer lies in the question: How have private arms been limited over time? At the time of the founding of this country, private ownership of long guns, artillery, and warships were a non-issue. Indeed, officers granted commissions by the outlawed Provincial Congress in Massachusetts carried out armed operations in the Bay of Biscay off the coasts of France and in the Caribbean Sea. For people on the frontiers, they could purchase the same (or better) weapons than those of the Army if they could afford them. How about the purchase of fighter and bombers from the War Assets Administration following WW2. Look to the NFA in 1964 for the real limits. That is relatively recent historically speaking.

Good luck in your search for the answer the professor wanted you to say.

XNN

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I had an interesting discussion in Political Science class recently and the professor asked an interesting question that I could not answer, where do we put a limit on arms? I know most of you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

I'll repeat the answer I've given to this question on other threads. I think the line at private ownership should be drawn at weapons that are inherently indiscriminate in their effects. If a weapon simply cannot be safely possessed or used without recklessly endangering or killing innocent people, then the only place for such a weapon (if any) is as a deterrent against attack by foreign countries.

I don't think such weapons should be under the control of anyone who isn't fully accountable to the general public. That basically means that only government should possess such weapons, but such a government, like any, needs to be kept on a very short leash. The citizens need to retain the ability to overthrow the government with conventional arms if they need to do so. (A government can only be considered accountable to the people if the people have the physical means to unseat it.) Indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction are neither necessary nor useful to a public that decides to remove its government by force.

Take the case of nuclear weapons. If there were a popular uprising in the US, with armed citizens swarming into D.C., could the US government nuke D.C.? Only if it wanted to destroy itself more effectively than any uprising ever could. A government that used nukes on its own cities would basically be doing the same damage that a foreign military would cause if it were to attack with nukes. At the same time, if citizen rebels were to use nukes to kill government troops, they'd also end up killing a hell of a lot of innocent people as well. Not only would that be illegitimate by any commonsense moral standard, it would turn most people against the rebels. So the use of such weapons by either side would be extremely counterproductive and probably suicidal.

 

[Vanilluxe]

Thank you from all your responses, so I guess you could easily ask a museum if they want to sell their submarines on display...

I really want to open up my own sub museum so I can get this thing!

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thank you from all your responses, so I guess you could easily ask a museum if they want to sell their submarines on display...

I really want to open up my own sub museum so I can get this thing!

Soviet Era "Whiskey" class sub, for sale, $497,000 US.

http://www.projectboats.com/whiskeyFAQ.html

 

[Vanilluxe]

Soviet Era "Whiskey" class sub, for sale, $497,000 US.

http://www.projectboats.com/whiskeyFAQ.html

The San Francisco ports would not want something that big to take up space and they would say no...

On the other hand, that picture of the green sub is an Italian CB midget sub used in WWII as Mussolini's stealthy subs. They can fit nicely inside a building without the the meter maid putting an expensive ticket on the conning tower.

 

[Athan]

I had an interesting discussion in Political Science class recently and the professor asked an interesting question that I could not answer, where do we put a limit on arms? I know most of you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban, but what do you think about people having missiles, tanks, submarines, etc.?

The answer is you are limited as a citizen by what you can afford. A organization can buy a sub because an organization can afford it. Others are pointing out statements as to the why we as citizens should have access to it.

 

[Pericles]

We hold the government responsible for its actions that it takes by using elections.

If God had intended for us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

"Of all the lands of Europe, the Swiss are the best armed, and the most free." Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

Well, what happens if say like theres a billionaire whose company bought a bunch of weapons from aircrafts to armored subways and started a coup de tat? The government would be the only entity strong enough to put the billionaire warlord down. I trust the government more, because it is stable unlike some groups with high ambitions who can be dangerous.

so what you're saying, is that you're afraid of a few guys with weapons running around causing havoc. so your first response is to arm a bunch of guys with weapons to keep that from happening? do you not realize how asinine of a position that is?

 

[Dr.3D]

We hold the government responsible for its actions that it takes by using elections.

Yeah, that really works well. They present us with Bozo or Clarabelle and then tell us to vote for our choice. In either case, we end up with another clown in the White House.

Just trying getting somebody other than just another establishment clown in the White House.

 

[WesSeid]

When the government is able to outgun the citizens tyranny ensues.

How are the citizens expected to abide by our declaration of independence?

"When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government."

Stacking the deck in favor of the government seems to defeat this whole concept....

Wonder what your class has to say about a government that blatantly declares "war" on segments of it's citizenry?

Kind of sums it up.

A main thing to remember is what the 2nd Amendment is about. It's not about having a rifle for hunting or target shooting. Plenty of people get that part wrong about the 2nd Amendment, and then their thought process about things related to it are wrong.

When you think about the real intent of the 2nd Amendment, and you start thinking about tanks and missiles and things, it makes the current arguments of "people shouldn't be able to have 'assault rifles' or more than 10-round mags" sound pretty dumb. The 2nd Amendment is about having arms to prevent tyranny, and these people want to limit guns to 10 rounds (or ban guns entirely)?

 

[Carson]

What if governments weren't able to own guns and everyone of them that was available to a military had to be accountable to a human being.

There's you some gun control!

 

[Origanalist]

What if governments weren't able to own guns and everyone of them that was available to a military had to be accountable to a human being.

There's you some gun control!

Great idea, tough sell to the gubmint though.