General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Beck's "historian" says we can have fighter jets, tanks, etc.
Even nukes?
Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or Fighter Jet
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 9/26/2013 1:37 pm
Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton doubled down on his assertion that there are literally no limits on the Second Amendment, declaring that individuals not only have an inalienable right to possess guns, but also tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and anything else they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs:
The belief of the Second Amendment was you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself whether it be against a thug, an aggressor, a crook, or against your government.
Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?
Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ... You have a right to fight back with whatever you can get your hands on to defend your life, your property, your possession, your family, your whatever.
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-second-amendment-guarantees-individual-right-own-tank-or-fighter-jet#sthash.p4wim69E.dpuf
Uncle Joe
(58,398 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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.
Uncle Joe
(58,398 posts)Anti aircraft missles for those not famliar with the term.
Edit to add If they could afford them?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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.
Uncle Joe
(58,398 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Where did you get the idea that they're "prevalent"? They're nearly impossible to find and very expensive when you do.
Uncle Joe
(58,398 posts)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.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/webster-aurora-shooter/index.html
One of the guns James Eagan Holmes allegedly used to shoot 70 people within minutes was an assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. This extraordinary firepower enables gunmen to kill and wound more victims than they otherwise could if they used weapons that held fewer bullets. There is obviously no need for any civilian to have such powerful weapons.
(snip)
More than 30,000 people die every year from guns in the U.S., and more than 400,000 are victims of nonfatal crime committed with guns. The economic costs are staggering -- an estimated $100 billion annually.
Not as many people own automatic weapons so the deaths would be fewer, however that's the only reason, but the longer it remains legal to own automatic weapons or 100 round drum magazines the more people will end up obtaining them either by hook or crook.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)People buy tanks with the guns disabled all the time; you only need the background check and stamp if you want the working gun.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,376 posts)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.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)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
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)2nd amendment does not make any limiting remarks on the types of arms to keep and bear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023367471
davepc
(3,936 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)What people joke about, Glenn is serious over.
Clearly the 2nd Amendment says we can arm bears. Bears can't drive tanks. Duh.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Most American Legion posts seem to have managed to get one.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Aristus
(66,438 posts)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...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)redwitch
(14,946 posts)They just won't tell you because, well, you have a giant cannon.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)so they can open carry?
Will they be demanding refueling stations at every Starbucks?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)...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?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I remember that really vague. I think it was in the 1980s or 90s.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)so you could drive your tank to work every day.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)head lights, tail lights at the proper height, seat belts, etc
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Most roads are weight restricted. Tanks are really heavy.
KinMd
(966 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)That means if the SCOTUS says the Constitution "always" allowed for tanks, then *POOF* we have a right to tanks.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)I mean really he's a 5150 case.