I understand that one of the major reasons for the 2nd amendment is to have an armed citizenry 1) to deter tyranny 2) overthrow the tyranny if step 1 fails.
Given that, shouldn’t the armed citizenry have access to weapons which would be useful against the military? Back in the 1700s, you could have good chances of winning against the government with just some muzzle loading muskets since muzzle-loading muskets composed the bulk of the governments’ firepower too. However, today, it would be considerably more difficult to overthrow the US government with just handguns, shotguns and rifles. If you want to defeat government forces which use armored vehicles, aircraft and indirect fire artillery, you’ll need weapons which do a good against those assets.
So, shouldn’t rocket launchers, artillery (howitzers, mortars, rockets), high explosives like C4, man portable SAMs, armored vehicles and other such weapons be available to civilians*?
*Preferably without registration since registration would make it easier for a tyranny to take them back.
Seriously; look at places like Syria or Iraq or Libya, where people have remarkably free access to rocket launchers. Imagine these were as easily available here.
Now, imagine yourself the pilot of a large passenger airliner, making an approach to a large metropolitan airport…
Pretty much the same thing that goes wrong right now with gun ownership. We just haven’t been desensitized like we have with guns by constant killings and endless “guns are for freeedom” rhetoric to be as accepting of killings with other weapons.
When I lived in Hawaii, news reports of angry locals on the Big Island – especially the pot growers – taking potshots at those tourist helicopters were legion. I shudder to think what they’d do with an actual rocket launcher.
For most practical purposes, the question hinges on laws restricting access to explosives; since virtually all modern heavy military ordinance either has explosive warheads or uses charges of propellant large enough to be considered explosive devices in their own right. I doubt that most people would want to buy something very expensive that they have no practical use for in everyday life.
They are available, typically classified under Destructive Devices. Were you under the illusion that these things are unavailable? If you’ve got the cash you can get anything you want short of plutonium absolutely legally.
Cool! I’d like to getone of these. I mean they don’t pack enough punch to go through a tank, but they’d do just fine against an armored personnel carrier (or those assholes on the freeway) Do they stock them at Walmart or do I have to go to some kind of specialty shop?
Sure, you can get them. Is there a bulk discount? Also, since you have to do the paperwork on a per-device level, does the government take a dim view on somebody buying, say, 500 anti-tank rockets? Or would there be a problem if every single person in the state of Wyoming filed to buy one, and everybody in Colorado started the paperwork on buying an Abrams? Is there anything in the process that allows the government to step in and say “Well, hold on, now…” or do they just keep going through the paperwork, one after another after another…?
There is something in the process. In order to avail yourself of said weapons, you must go through the process of acquiring an NFA weapon. It’s complicated, and I dare say that anybody who decides to go through it will NOT be someone you have to worry about. Nobody willingly offers up their fingerprints, gets a passport photograph, speaks to their local chief law enforcement officer, and consents to inspection at any time if they intend to commit crimes.
So, does the government take a dim view? Quite the contrary. Anybody who can get an NFA weapon is exactly the type of person they want to have them.
Debating the merits of the Second Amendment while the very future inheritors of this ‘liberty’ are mowed down by semi-automatic gunfire in their prepubescence.
Well that’s not fair. anyone should be able to get these weapons anytime they want without the intrusion of government. They should be able to simply pick up an anti-aircraft missile launcher whenever they want, without the government busy bodies getting involved.
I’m certainly in favor of average citizens being able to own, say an artillery battery. Considering how expensive and impractical they are unless your defeating tyranny I doubt they’ll be many takers.
When it comes to the BATFE, getting an NFA weapon (i.e., saying “I do”) does mean forever. You want to yank their chain? Be my guest. You cross the feds at your own risk. In this case, they actually do know where you live, what you look like, and what you have. If they come for you you’ll never be that unhappy again.
I understand the point of the second amendment the same way the OP does, and have long thought it can only be reasonably interpreted to guarantee citizens the right to bear ICBMs and nuclear powered aircraft carriers and spy satellites and all the rest.
But I also think we should have amended the Constitution decades ago to nullify the second amendment.
Using the second amendment to facilitate individuals buying assault rifles with large magazines just seems bizarre from any angle I can consider.
I think the average person seriously underestimates the raw number of ex-military types out there who have a good, scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle, and know how to use them effectively enough to hit center-mass at 300-400 yards, that could bring just about any government to its knees in less than a week if they were so motivated to do so.
The exception would be a government, or government-like-proxy (a military junta) willing to saturation nuke any area where such insurgents are active.
Bitchin’, moanin’, and crazy rhetoric aside, it hasn’t happened because not enough people feel that it is necessary. I agree. We’re not even close.
