Limits to Private Arsenals

So in a discussion with a nameless handle, he agreed that the average citizen should have the legal right to own any and all kinds of armaments. I'd like to see just what the rest of the forum agrees should be legal and what the rest of you people think about the list.

I stopped short of the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I'm not even sure if governments should have those things, though that's not going to change. The fully loaded jet fighter isn't much of an issue due to cost, maintenance, and fuel concerns so go ahead. You forgot tanks as well.

VX and aerosol ebola being chemical and biological in nature, are not "arms" and thus are not subject to the protections of the Second Amendment.

All the rest of the items on the list should be fair game, in my opinion.

I think people should be able to have any weapon that a "normal soldier" would have and by that I just mean basically all types of guns, and nothing more.

So thats no nuclear weapons, anti-tank missles or deadly bioweapons. Just normal firearms.

I don't really see the point in outlawing biological or chemical weapons, or tanks, or rocket launchers, or jet fighters. If someone has the means to acquire any of these weapons then a law isn't going to make a bit of difference to these people. Do we honestly think that someone who has the means and desire to obtain these things is going to pay any attention to a law that bans them? So, whatever, ban them, don't ban them, it doesn't really matter. You might as well ban super-powers while you're at it...

You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting.

Click to expand...

I can't select the option I would really like to.

In seriousness, of those on the list, I only think handguns should be allowed, or in other words, about what is legal now.

celticlord said:

VX and aerosol ebola being chemical and biological in nature

Click to expand...

So are nuclear weapons which rely upon a series of chemical and physical reactions to work. What does chemical and biological have to do with separating them?

are not "arms" and thus are not subject to the protections of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Huh? A missile containing a conventional warhead is an arm, but a missile containing a chemical payload is not an arm?

Huh? That makes little sense. Especially since conventional weapons rely upon chemical reactions to produce energy. The only difference is that instead of producing a big explosion, it releases chemical agents.

Pepper spray is fully legal. And it's biological is nature. Replace the pepper with Ebola and how is that any different aside from sheer killing capacity?

One of the things about belonging to a political forum is, the people there seem so obsessed with politics they subscribe to ideologies rather than common sense.

Common sense is, there is no reason to let people own anything more powerful than a handgun or a rifle. Nuclear weapons are not required for self-defense and putting them in the hands of anyone who wants them creates a threat to humanity.

Ethereal said:

I don't really see the point in outlawing biological or chemical weapons, or tanks, or rocket launchers, or jet fighters.

Click to expand...

While I understand what you are arguing, that's not the focus of the argument. This is meant for the average citizens to own. Not for the illegal, non-average questionably terrorist whack who's out to get weapons to cause mass destruction and death. Should average citizens be allowed to have such weapons legally?

obvious Child said:

So are nuclear weapons which rely upon a series of chemical and physical reactions to work. What does chemical and biological have to do with separating them?

Click to expand...

The earth-shattering KABOOM!

obvious Child said:

Huh? A missile containing a conventional warhead is an arm, but a missile containing a chemical payload is not an arm?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Again, the distinction is the earth-shattering KABOOM!

obvious Child said:

Huh? That makes little sense.

Click to expand...

And aerosol Ebola does?

obvious Child said:

Pepper spray is fully legal. And it's biological is nature. Replace the pepper with Ebola and how is that any different aside from sheer killing capacity?

Click to expand...

Pepper spray is not fully legal. Some jurisdictions do not allow it.

And they can, because it is not an "arm", and thus there is no fundamental right to pepper spray.

celticlord said:

The earth-shattering KABOOM!

Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're joking. Or if you've gone insane.

Provide a rational argument as to why they are different. And many chemical weapons are meant to explode overhead with sizable explosions to produce the widest range of contamination.

Exactly. Again, the distinction is the earth-shattering KABOOM!

Click to expand...

See above.

And aerosol Ebola does?

Click to expand...

You failed to provide a rational argument.

Pepper spray is not fully legal. Some jurisdictions do not allow it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but spray is not the only delivery method. One can deliver it through various grenade and riot weapons.

The Defense Technology 37mm Launcher is legal for public purchase and is partially designed for use of delivery of riot suppressing agents including natural agents.

And they can, because it is not an "arm", and thus there is no fundamental right to pepper spray.

Click to expand...

See above.

Ethereal said:

I don't really see the point in outlawing biological or chemical weapons, or tanks, or rocket launchers, or jet fighters. If someone has the means to acquire any of these weapons then a law isn't going to make a bit of difference to these people. Do we honestly think that someone who has the means and desire to obtain these things is going to pay any attention to a law that bans them? So, whatever, ban them, don't ban them, it doesn't really matter. You might as well ban super-powers while you're at it...

Click to expand...

Yes, if you happen to have $50 billion sitting in your bank and you're chummy with A.Q. Khan, you could theoretically buy a nuke regardless of the law. But chances are you'd set off lots of red flags with the feds long before you ever got your hands on the nuke. If they were legal, then the feds would have no cause to stop you, even if they were well aware of your plans.

Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.

Ikari said:

The fully loaded jet fighter isn't much of an issue due to cost, maintenance, and fuel concerns so go ahead. You forgot tanks as well.

Click to expand...

Ikari-Not really I can get you a fully loaded Mig21UT from Poland with Guns Ammo and Drop tanks for all under $100,000 USD, the cost of maintance isn't to bad about adverage of a mid-size twin engine aircraft.

As for Tanks my Cozz. owns a fully restored Churchill and Sherman, they cost him more in gas and maintance then my two WWII Training aircraft.

I would like to see someone actually try to acquire and brandish the higher level weaponry in that list and see how the government reacts. You would never be allowed to hold onto such technology as a civilian because of the threat to public safety.

This argument centers around idealism but not reality. In reality, no one could afford half of that stuff, and if they could, they more than likely would not be able to keep it.

I'm a strong believer in implied powers and reinterpretation of the constitution in accordance with modern needs, but when it comes to this, I sincerely don't believe that the founders intended for it to go to such a level.

I'll play devil's advocate though and say that they probably intended for the Second Amendment to be a means for the civilian population to have equal capability with the government. On those terms, anyone who can afford such technology should be allowed to possess it. Back in the day, it was about rifles; today, it's about much bigger guns.

Scorpion89 said:

Ikari-Not really I can get you a fully loaded Mig21UT from Poland with Guns Ammo and Drop tanks for all under $100,000 USD, the cost of maintance isn't to bad about adverage of a mid-size twin engine aircraft.

Click to expand...

Awesome, can you also get me $100,000 USD?

Whatever you can afford to acquire and keep, which pretty much rules out the most dangerous forms of biological and nuclear weapons. Only governments that steal trillions with impunity could ever be foolish enough to create those...

Remember that in a free society, anything that can damage your neighbor's property is a liability, and it would be in your own best interest to invest in insurance and other means of risk mitigation to keep everything safe.

Furthermore, people who are perceived to be dangerous would be ostracized. Would you buy socks from Kim Jong-il?


(Please read up existing publications on Anarcho-Capitalism before asking obvious questions - they have all been answered quite effectively. Here's a free audio book to get you started.)

Kandahar said:

Yes, if you happen to have $50 billion sitting in your bank...

Click to expand...

Which nobody in the world does.

Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.

Click to expand...

If someone tried to attack America in a jet fighter I would just laugh hysterically as they were shot out of the sky by these guys...

Kandahar said:

Same thing with a jet fighter or whatever. Maybe you could go out and buy one if you had a couple billion dollars sitting around...but if it was illegal, the feds would have just cause to stop the transaction and/or confiscate your jet fighter BEFORE you wreaked havoc with it.

Click to expand...

Sorry Sir but you really don't know much about this now do you as I said above what would you like me to get you.

A few example I present you from this forum,

A Warbirds Resource Group Site :: View topic - Warbird Heritage Foundation A-4B inspection to Airworthy

A Warbirds Resource Group Site :: View topic - MiG-21UM, MiG-23UB (to flying status)

Also I suggest you check out the fine folks at Collins foundation who own and operated a F-4 .

Also in England their is the Vulcan group who own and fly the last of the V-Bombers.

I can't find the link to the guys who just brought in three Su-27s and a Mig-29 but they should be flying at least one of the 27s by Sept and hope to have the 29 flying by Dec.

So like I said what would you like let me know I'm sure with my connection I can find it for you.

There are costs, beyond the sticker price, of operating something like an aircraft. Maintenance, fuel, etc.....Do you have access to a supply system, to order new parts from, when a part goes bad? Because parts are going to go bad. Do you have the time of day, to do all the checks and inspections necessary to insure safe flight all by yourself? And then, are you going to have the skill and ability to fly the thing effectively in the first place?

Besides, there are some critical parts of a aircraft for weapons delivery, that are classified secret or top secret. Where are you going to get those parts? Rare is the person that could fathom just building one part of a weapons delivery system, much less having the knowledge to integrate all of them. Its way more complex than some simple electronics class.

In essence, I am not ever going to be worried about somebody buying a fighter aircraft, even if it were legal to own one.

I suppose I have to weigh in here, even though to be honest I'm getting tired of arguing about guns. Mostly the same old **** round and round.

I believe the original intent of the 2A is that law abiding citizens should be able to own weapons suitable for:
1. Self-defense
2. Sport
3. Militia service
4. All other lawful purposes.

1 and 2 would cover blades, saps, handguns, shotguns, and most rifles...and at least arguably autorifles and subguns.

3 - militia service...anything an individual soldier would carry that constituted a "small arm" or "light support weapon".
This would include autorifles, light machine guns, infantry anti-tank weapons, body armor, grenades, and suchlike.

Things like Tanks, AFVs, Jet fighters, Stingers... well maybe. Hardly anybody could afford them. The utility of these for anything short of repelling a foreign invasion or something of that sort would tend to limit their appeal.

In the intrest of compromise, I'd accept having to have a special permit (background check, storage regulations, etc) for anything heavier than an autorifle. Possibly membership in a citizen's militia as a requirement.

(That's actually not much different than what we have now with Class III permits, other than I am not fully convinced that selective fire rifles or subguns should fall under Class III.)

What you can carry out in public is a slightly different matter, imo.

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery).

Click to expand...

Orius said:

I would like to see someone actually try to acquire and brandish the higher level weaponry in that list and see how the government reacts. You would never be allowed to hold onto such technology as a civilian because of the threat to public safety.

This argument centers around idealism but not reality. In reality, no one could afford half of that stuff, and if they could, they more than likely would not be able to keep it.

I'm a strong believer in implied powers and reinterpretation of the constitution in accordance with modern needs, but when it comes to this, I sincerely don't believe that the founders intended for it to go to such a level.

I'll play devil's advocate though and say that they probably intended for the Second Amendment to be a means for the civilian population to have equal capability with the government. On those terms, anyone who can afford such technology should be allowed to possess it. Back in the day, it was about rifles; today, it's about much bigger guns.

Click to expand...

Except for the top three of the list you can find and get everything else on that list.

WI Crippler said:

There are costs, beyond the sticker price, of operating something like an aircraft. Maintenance, fuel, etc.....Do you have access to a supply system, to order new parts from, when a part goes bad? Because parts are going to go bad. Do you have the time of day, to do all the checks and inspections necessary to insure safe flight all by yourself? And then, are you going to have the skill and ability to fly the thing effectively in the first place?

Besides, there are some critical parts of a aircraft for weapons delivery, that are classified secret or top secret. Where are you going to get those parts? Rare is the person that could fathom just building one part of a weapons delivery system, much less having the knowledge to integrate all of them. Its way more complex than some simple electronics class.

In essence, I am not ever going to be worried about somebody buying a fighter aircraft, even if it were legal to own one.

Click to expand...

To answer your question Yes to all of them.

Parts for all former USSR based aircraft are very easy to come by hell the Mig21 is the longest produce Fighter aircraft every right now you can go to Romania and get brand new wings for $200,000.

As for working on them they aren't that hard to work on even Western Fighter are quite easy and don't forget there are allot of former Mechs out there.

As for Weapon System's the only one's that I know that are still Classified are the F-22 most Weapon System are left over from mid 60s tech that have been updated. Every scene the inside of the latest B-52 Glass Cockpit upgrade nothing has change since they came out of Boeing.

All of them with perhaps nukes and bio being the exception. I dont think allowing anyone to distroy potentialy millions of people acceptible.

I believe the most important reason for the 2A was to fight government tyranny. What good does the 2A do if we allow the government to ban high power weapons while they hold such weapons?

celticlord said:

VX and aerosol ebola being chemical and biological in nature, are not "arms" and thus are not subject to the protections of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Under what definition?
arm - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[3]
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense

Any distinction you try to make is going to be flimsy semantics when the subject the OP is bringing up is the matter of 'arms' in the sense of weapons of warfare, as many interpret the second amendment to mean.

Chemical and biological weapons of warfare are just that... weapons of warfare. The do have things that distinguish them from other weapons, but those things do not make them into not weapons.

Essentially the OP is asking the question "Assuming the 2nd amendment was meant to preserve the freedom of citizens against the tyranny of governments, including their own, which modern weapons should be prohibited for individual ownership, if any?"

By implication, the question hints that assuming such an interpretation of the 2nd will devolve into an untenable situation, thus forcing a rethinking as to either 1) the meaning of the 2nd or 2) whether the 2nd is appropriate to our modern day.

It is a good question to be asking living document, organic jurisprudence advocates, since our Constitution stated this right (along with several others) as principles, rather than legalistically designed directives.

The originalists and strict constructionists, for consistency's sake, should probably consider it permissible to ban anything that wasn't around during the time of the writing. But, they are of course not consistent.

But, those who believe that the document was designed to adapt to the times in which it found itself should interpret the 2nd to protect whatever will preserve the original principles it was designed to. That being, the principle that people ought to retain the means to fight off tyranny.

So, we find ourselves in the odd situation where the originalists are making living document arguments to preserve the principles behind the 2nd whiles sticking to originalist arguments to destroy all the rest of our rights... and living document advocates making up toothless principles(truly being activists) to destroy the second while ardently preserving the principles that protect the rest of our rights.

I love the 2nd amendment because, for whatever reason, it makes fools out of both sides One side adopts the jurisprudence of the other, while the other adopts the loosey goosey jurisprudence they are always accused of.




I like Ideological Selectivism, closely related to Cherrypickandchoosism, both of which are umbrella jurisprudences where one picks and applies whatever jurisprudence will get the outcome that best fits one's ideology. Alito expressed it during his confirmation hearings, but nobody seemed to notice, really. It seems that this jurisprudence is the one that is flexible enough to include all the present jurisprudence, being offered by both the right and left on our modern Supreme Court. Without ever having realized it, all of our Justices have this jurisprudence as their common ground.

Sigh.

In any case, you are ruining his (the OP poster's) game with your own. stop it.

Scorpion89 said:

To answer your question Yes to all of them.

Parts for all former USSR based aircraft are very easy to come by hell the Mig21 is the longest produce Fighter aircraft every right now you can go to Romania and get brand new wings for $200,000.

Click to expand...

OK now I know you're bull****ting because about the only commodity you can get from Romania is a cheap baby from one of their orphanages. Because orphans are about the only thing Romania produces. That's because they have to feed Dracula somehow.