arms, that would include Stingers and rocket propelled grenades.

That's the problem with saying there is no limitation in regards to personal arms.

Thanks for the thread, Archae.

I mean, it's just a tube.

Getting the rockets is tougher, but can still be done legally. It's just way too expensive for anybody to do it outside of Blackwater and the occasional Mythbusters-type enthusiast.

Anti aircraft missles for those not famliar with the term.

Edit to add If they could afford them?

Anybody can have the launcher and the avionics; getting the warhead requires a background check and a tax stamp, and is prohibitively expensive to begin with.

Is there some problem with misused Stinger missiles out there I'm unaware of?

Blackwater has them; I don't particularly see why they should be the only people who do.

they only serve to undermine and leech from the nation's defense budget.

If the U.S. continues to rely on for profit mercenaries, our public defense establishment will only be weakened as a result, from reduced financial resources and to increased reenlistment attrition.

Not to mention, using hired mercenaries only serves to make political accountability all the more evasive increasing the chances of the U.S. using military adventurism and going to war.

As for your question re: problems with Stingers, none that I know of, but if we continue to go down this path and Stingers become even remotely as prevalent as automatic weapons, the consequences will be most severe.

Where did you get the idea that they're "prevalent"? They're nearly impossible to find and very expensive when you do.

dedicated to selling automatic weapons.

I believe those murders you cite were with legally owned automatic weapons or perhaps one of them was stolen.

I'm wondering how many people have been murdered with illegal automatic weapons, do you have those stats?

My point remains true even if you broaden it to Assault Weapons, semi-automatic or guns in general, more powerful weapons may be more expensive but they also do more damage.

More weapons = more murder, more killing power = more potential death and injury.

A failure common to large magazines. Grimly, if he had had regular magazines the death toll would probably have been higher. The deadliest mass shooting in US history, Cho's rampage at Virginia Tech, used ordinary pistols with ordinary magazines, which are what kill something like 90% of gunshot victims in this country anyways but seem somehow to escape public outcry -- though the 90% includes suicides, which I never know quite what to do with in stats. (On that note, I think the Constitutional argument for owning a handgun is much weaker than the argument for owning a rifle or shotgun; SCOTUS seems to mostly agree.)

I'm wondering how many people have been murdered with illegal automatic weapons, do you have those stats?

Zero as far as I know, but if you know of any please do share (not being snarky; actual facts are what we need a lot more of). They actually aren't very useful for killing people; they're designed for making people take cover (an infantry fire team has one automatic rifleman; he fires so the bad guys keep their heads down while the riflemen and grenadiers go up and kill them).

Googling "automatic weapons for sale" I see one site that sells automatic weapons to law enforcement agencies, and a bunch of sites that sell "tactical" rifles, ie low-power rifles styled to look like military weapons.

People buy tanks with the guns disabled all the time; you only need the background check and stamp if you want the working gun.

Do you think each airplane will have an initial price tag of $769 million?

Or are you figuring the lifetime costs of operating one?

My math based on figures from this article suggest a cost per airframe of $160.1 million

($391.2 billion divided by a projected fleet of 2443 aircraft)


Yes, it's too much, no matter how you slice it, but I am pretty sure your figure is off by quite a large bit.

Japan has warned that it may halt their purchase if unit costs increase, and Canada has indicated it is not committed to a purchase yet.[102][103] The United States is projected to spend an estimated US$323 billion for development and procurement on the program, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[104] Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway estimated that his country's 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.[105]

The is the cost from Lockheed selling to other countries. 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.

Beck only needs to buy one. Why quibble. It's just a joke anyhow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

2nd amendment does not make any limiting remarks on the types of arms to keep and bear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023367471

A Letter of marque wasn't much use unless you had a boat that you could fight with. That mean armed with cannons and a crew of fighting men.

What people joke about, Glenn is serious over.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment says we can arm bears. Bears can't drive tanks. Duh.

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Something about a giant cannon makes people far less likely to judge you for picking your nose in traffic.

Most American Legion posts seem to have managed to get one.

Yeah, go ahead. Own a tank. After the first few days of trying to keep up with maintenance on the big bastard, you'll be looking for a buyer to take it off your hands.

The suburban Rambo-wanna-bes may talk big, but the reality of owning & keeping their big fantasy would curdle pretty quickly.

There's a reason we issue weapons-systems to people for whom training to use, operate and maintain it is a full-time job.

Mr. Suburban-Guerilla-Nine-To-Five-Job would roll over and die if he had to maintain a tank on a full-time basis.

I know. I've done it...

They just won't tell you because, well, you have a giant cannon.

For a house:






http://inhabitat.com/nyc/industrial-sprinkler-tank-house-transformed-into-a-tranquil-rooftop-oasis-in-nyc/

so they can open carry?

Will they be demanding refueling stations at every Starbucks?

...but tell me, if someone were to...well, buy a used Russian 203mm self-propelled gun and shell Glenn Beck's house flat with it from 20 miles away, do you think he'd still think the Second Amendment requires that any nut be allowed to own any weapon he or she wants?

I remember that really vague. I think it was in the 1980s or 90s.

so you could drive your tank to work every day.

head lights, tail lights at the proper height, seat belts, etc

Most roads are weight restricted. Tanks are really heavy.

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969.html|

That means if the SCOTUS says the Constitution "always" allowed for tanks, then *POOF* we have a right to tanks.

I mean really he's a 5150 case.