7 ms·

You do realize that there's a ton of precedent for privately-owned heavy weaponry in the US, right? As the 2nd Amendment folks would point out, there used to be

You do realize that there's a ton of precedent for privately-owned heavy weaponry in the US, right? As the 2nd Amendment folks would point out, there used to be US citizens who owned warships. F/A-18s without guided weaponry aren't really that much of a change. (they've got cannons, but afact no JDAMs, JSOWs, AMRAAMs or even dumb bombs) > Or, maybe more likely, some QAnon nutjob getting his hands on an armored vehicle and driving it through a shopping mall in Atlanta? Well, you can literally buy WW2 era tanks. And it doesn't take all that much to make them street-legal. This isn't new. And yet, we DON'T see nutjobs abusing it.

tootie 7y ago
I know. There's a document out there somewhere with John Adams signature telling a merchant captain it's fine to put cannons on his vessel. Privateers were even recruited to fight the British in 1812. That's what the 2nd amendment was actually written for. And the last time it was relevant. And I think just saying it hasn't happened yet is like saying we haven't had a giant pandemic yet in 2019. I'd rather not wait for a catastrophe to decide we should do something about it.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  The thing is, the WORST case for an asshole with a tank is a few dozen deaths. Tanks are designed to be operated by more than one person, and so a loner operating a tank gets at best the driver's seat and a machine gun. And when it comes to a few hundred deaths, Timothy McVeigh [0] says hi. Point being, a tank like that isn't really worse than a large ANFO truck bomb. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
- TechBro8615 7y ago
  "Do something about it" like what? The 2nd amendment specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If some nutjob wants to hurt people, he can figure out a way to do it with some household chemicals and gasoline. And if we're truly worried about that, shouldn't we be addressing the mental health problems that would cause somebody to drive a tank through a mall? I know it's a cliche, but guns don't kill people... people do.
  - xnyan 7y ago
    Have you ever killed someone without a gun? Not trying to be metal, but I was in a self defense situation many years ago and and something terrible happened. Shooting a gun vs using "household chemicals and gasoline" to attack someone, to say nothing of knives or bare hands, are so apart from each other that I know for a fact that you have no experience with violence or how much easier it is to do violence with a gun vs other methods. You are just parroting teenager-level philosophy. Besides all that, we have huge amounts of data over more than 100 years. Turns out, and this will shock you, when you have more guns you are more likely to shoot people and kill overall. I don't want people to die because Bubba finds it badass to own an AR-15 they will never use except maybe to kill themselves or a family member (statistically, these are the no1 and no2 most likely people an American is to kill with their gun). Do as you will I guess but almost nobody needs to own a gun privately.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      "I was in a self defence situation and needed to kill someone" and "almost nobody needs to own a gun privately" seem to be incompatible statements to me. As for the difficulty of killing large numbers of people, I'd stand by the assertion that it's easier with chemicals (explosives or incindiaries) than it is with guns.
      - crocodiletears 7y ago
        They aren't incompatible statements. Certainly the parent's experience, devoid of context could easily be seen as evidence in favor of permitting the possession of firearms. But just because they may have benefitted from, or could have benefited from the owning a firearm at one point doesn't mean that they accept the broader societal trade-offs that ubiquitous gun ownership entails. I hold a number of political convictions at odds with my personal interest, or which could/will hurt me as an individual in the future, as do many around me. But I stand by them because they would bring us closer to nation in-which I'd be happy to live. I'm firmly on the side of gun ownership. I'd like the NFA to be revised or repealed so as to make it more coherent, and less restrictive. Nevertheless, I can respect the parent's position, because their experience doesn't make them hypocritical or subtract from their point (though it can be used to) so much as it's a sign of social conscientiousness, and a willingness to potentially put what they believe to be the needs of the whole before the needs of the self.
StillBored 7y ago
Well there was the killdozer guy, who did just that with what was basically a homemade tank. Which in a way proves that a sufficiently motivated individual isn't going to be stopped by silly laws against owning this stuff.
- minikites 7y ago
  Why have laws at all then?
  - RealityVoid 7y ago
    To stop the insufficiently motivated ones.
  - andromeduck 7y ago
    Laws are for making certian undesirable strategies/behavior uneconomical and therefore less enticing to those who would otherwise commit them by making the resulting situation less attractive. For example right now there is nothing stopping you from just grabbing a paring knife and stabbing/killing a random person on the street but you sure as hell aren't going put yourself in a better situation having done so.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
So the jets still have their M61 Vulcans? Then it is a private air force! I wonder if civilians will ever get to fly an F-15C...

tootie 7y ago

I know. There's a document out there somewhere with John Adams signature telling a merchant captain it's fine to put cannons on his vessel. Privateers were even recruited to fight the British in 1812. That's what the 2nd amendment was actually written for. And the last time it was relevant. And I think just saying it hasn't happened yet is like saying we haven't had a giant pandemic yet in 2019. I'd rather not wait for a catastrophe to decide we should do something about it.

DuskStar 7y ago
The thing is, the WORST case for an asshole with a tank is a few dozen deaths. Tanks are designed to be operated by more than one person, and so a loner operating a tank gets at best the driver's seat and a machine gun. And when it comes to a few hundred deaths, Timothy McVeigh [0] says hi. Point being, a tank like that isn't really worse than a large ANFO truck bomb. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
TechBro8615 7y ago
"Do something about it" like what? The 2nd amendment specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If some nutjob wants to hurt people, he can figure out a way to do it with some household chemicals and gasoline. And if we're truly worried about that, shouldn't we be addressing the mental health problems that would cause somebody to drive a tank through a mall? I know it's a cliche, but guns don't kill people... people do.
- xnyan 7y ago
  Have you ever killed someone without a gun? Not trying to be metal, but I was in a self defense situation many years ago and and something terrible happened. Shooting a gun vs using "household chemicals and gasoline" to attack someone, to say nothing of knives or bare hands, are so apart from each other that I know for a fact that you have no experience with violence or how much easier it is to do violence with a gun vs other methods. You are just parroting teenager-level philosophy. Besides all that, we have huge amounts of data over more than 100 years. Turns out, and this will shock you, when you have more guns you are more likely to shoot people and kill overall. I don't want people to die because Bubba finds it badass to own an AR-15 they will never use except maybe to kill themselves or a family member (statistically, these are the no1 and no2 most likely people an American is to kill with their gun). Do as you will I guess but almost nobody needs to own a gun privately.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    "I was in a self defence situation and needed to kill someone" and "almost nobody needs to own a gun privately" seem to be incompatible statements to me. As for the difficulty of killing large numbers of people, I'd stand by the assertion that it's easier with chemicals (explosives or incindiaries) than it is with guns.
    - crocodiletears 7y ago
      They aren't incompatible statements. Certainly the parent's experience, devoid of context could easily be seen as evidence in favor of permitting the possession of firearms. But just because they may have benefitted from, or could have benefited from the owning a firearm at one point doesn't mean that they accept the broader societal trade-offs that ubiquitous gun ownership entails. I hold a number of political convictions at odds with my personal interest, or which could/will hurt me as an individual in the future, as do many around me. But I stand by them because they would bring us closer to nation in-which I'd be happy to live. I'm firmly on the side of gun ownership. I'd like the NFA to be revised or repealed so as to make it more coherent, and less restrictive. Nevertheless, I can respect the parent's position, because their experience doesn't make them hypocritical or subtract from their point (though it can be used to) so much as it's a sign of social conscientiousness, and a willingness to potentially put what they believe to be the needs of the whole before the needs of the self.

StillBored 7y ago

Well there was the killdozer guy, who did just that with what was basically a homemade tank. Which in a way proves that a sufficiently motivated individual isn't going to be stopped by silly laws against owning this stuff.

minikites 7y ago
Why have laws at all then?
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  To stop the insufficiently motivated ones.
- andromeduck 7y ago
  Laws are for making certian undesirable strategies/behavior uneconomical and therefore less enticing to those who would otherwise commit them by making the resulting situation less attractive. For example right now there is nothing stopping you from just grabbing a paring knife and stabbing/killing a random person on the street but you sure as hell aren't going put yourself in a better situation having done so.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

So the jets still have their M61 Vulcans? Then it is a private air force! I wonder if civilians will ever get to fly an F-15C...