7 ms·

> Luckily for the US, its gun culture ensured that small arms ammunition industry has a civilian component in the US. This is not the case with other types of a

by otikik 4y ago

> Luckily for the US, its gun culture ensured that small arms ammunition industry has a civilian component in the US. This is not the case with other types of ammunition, as shown earlier with Javelin and Stinger missiles I am trying to keep an open mind and see where this person is coming from, but I don't think "Luckily" is the right word to use. If I was feeling particularly charitable I would call it a "Mixed bag". It's a bit ridiculous, but imagine for a second if Javelin and Stinger missiles did have a civilian component. > If competition between autocracies and democracies has really entered a military phase, then the arsenal of democracy must radically improve its approach to the production of materiel in wartime That is one option, there are others. We could, for example, decide to take preventive economical measures against autocracies, and thus preventing them from capital they could use to build their own arsenal. Everyone having smaller arsenals is good for everyone (except the Military Industrial complex, of course).

musingsole 4y ago
> imagine for a second if Javelin and Stinger missiles did have a civilian component. You mean if rocket clubs were free to pursue their interests to a much further extent than the toys they're restricted to now? Rockets don't always have to be weapons.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  Not to mention fireworks show it can be a perfectly safe endeavor with the proper legal framework. Even kids can use them. No, I'm way more worried about the fact a terrorist could come at my door with a tank at any moment and I have no way to defend myself. And what if it's not a terrorist ? What if I have to defend myself against the state itself ? At least we should be able to equip the schools to protect our children, if not directly our homes.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    I have another idea. What if we all pooled together to buy some defense equipment, created some kind of club for training people, elected a bunch to run it; and then enjoyed the protection from this shared service without having to own heavy weapons ourselves?
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      We could even call it "arm club" in reference to fight club, to make it popular. And eventually give it a cute nick name ending with -y like arm cluby. Or army.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You are at much greater immediate threat from your well-armed neighbors. And they from you. Lately, the greatest ongoing threat from tyranny, by the numbers, is that visited upon black people by over-armed, trigger-happy, and unindictable police. In what way does your owning guns help, there? Better to disarm the police. But then police have no protection from people (superficially) like you.
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      You didn't get the /s of the thread apparently. I'm French. The US gun politics are bonkers to me. Seriously, what sane person would be worried that a lone terrorist would manage to bring a tank to a suburb and need a civilian Javelin to fight that ? If a tank is at your door, it's not terrorism, it's war. The fact it seemed credible enough for you to answer seriously to it makes me think the USA situation is even worse than I thought.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        It is. Your joke is professed reality for probably a good third of Americans.
      - musingsole 4y ago
        > Seriously, what sane person would be worried that a lone terrorist would manage to bring a tank to a suburb and need a civilian Javelin to fight that ? If a tank is at your door, it's not terrorism, it's war. I'll just leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(criminal)#Tank_rampage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(criminal)#Tank... (It wasn't even the tank rampage I was looking for...)
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Police departments issued armored personnel carriers are more worrisome, just by number.
- Arubis 4y ago
  Maybe those rocket clubs would benefit (in the narrow, ignoring undesired side effects sense) by classifying their toys as munitions and seeking support from the NRA. I know there's folks that've wondered the same about protecting encryption via that path rather than by trying to classify it as protected speech. I can't say I love the priorities and values our current systems in the states represent.
spamizbad 4y ago
Sorry 2nd amendment-hating missle-grabbers: the only way to stop a bad guy with a T72 is a good guy with a Javelin* * or NLAW, Stugna, AT4, Carl Gustaf, general air superiority, etc. /s
- lazide 4y ago
  Man, can you imagine range days with a Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle? I can feel the noise ordinances from here!
palmetieri2000 4y ago
RE missiles and civilians (Non-US person here with a few questions): I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items, if the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny then why aren't the citizens allowed the appropriate arms to do so? How are the laws that allow the US gov to exclude citizens from owning these not 'un-constitutional'? I imagine the answer probably lies somewhere in the "too much risk for accidents or deliberate hostile use" territory. I hope this isn't inflammatory, not my intention, given what we continue to see re mass shootings, and the gun control proposals that happen afterwards it seems a bit like you have the worst of both worlds. Put differently, there are enough citizen firearms with enough firepower to facilitate individuals attacking soft targets with horrendous effect but not enough firearms or firepower for civilians to actually have any remotely likely potential of defeating a tyrannical US military (or even police force).
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items, if the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny then why aren't the citizens allowed the appropriate arms to do so? That's because it isn't actually the fundamental purpose. It was written at a time where the country didn't have a permanent standing army. That's why the amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    ", the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You don't have to take my word for it, here is the latest from the supreme court: > "It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects" > “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” > "law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense." > "As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”" > "The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
kornhole 4y ago
A for profit weapons industry and a for profit health care industry create other problems such as more war and more sick and indebted citizens.

by otikik 4y ago

musingsole 4y ago

> imagine for a second if Javelin and Stinger missiles did have a civilian component. You mean if rocket clubs were free to pursue their interests to a much further extent than the toys they're restricted to now? Rockets don't always have to be weapons.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Not to mention fireworks show it can be a perfectly safe endeavor with the proper legal framework. Even kids can use them. No, I'm way more worried about the fact a terrorist could come at my door with a tank at any moment and I have no way to defend myself. And what if it's not a terrorist ? What if I have to defend myself against the state itself ? At least we should be able to equip the schools to protect our children, if not directly our homes.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  I have another idea. What if we all pooled together to buy some defense equipment, created some kind of club for training people, elected a bunch to run it; and then enjoyed the protection from this shared service without having to own heavy weapons ourselves?
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    We could even call it "arm club" in reference to fight club, to make it popular. And eventually give it a cute nick name ending with -y like arm cluby. Or army.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You are at much greater immediate threat from your well-armed neighbors. And they from you. Lately, the greatest ongoing threat from tyranny, by the numbers, is that visited upon black people by over-armed, trigger-happy, and unindictable police. In what way does your owning guns help, there? Better to disarm the police. But then police have no protection from people (superficially) like you.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    You didn't get the /s of the thread apparently. I'm French. The US gun politics are bonkers to me. Seriously, what sane person would be worried that a lone terrorist would manage to bring a tank to a suburb and need a civilian Javelin to fight that ? If a tank is at your door, it's not terrorism, it's war. The fact it seemed credible enough for you to answer seriously to it makes me think the USA situation is even worse than I thought.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      It is. Your joke is professed reality for probably a good third of Americans.
    - musingsole 4y ago
      > Seriously, what sane person would be worried that a lone terrorist would manage to bring a tank to a suburb and need a civilian Javelin to fight that ? If a tank is at your door, it's not terrorism, it's war. I'll just leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(criminal)#Tank_rampage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(criminal)#Tank... (It wasn't even the tank rampage I was looking for...)
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Police departments issued armored personnel carriers are more worrisome, just by number.
Arubis 4y ago
Maybe those rocket clubs would benefit (in the narrow, ignoring undesired side effects sense) by classifying their toys as munitions and seeking support from the NRA. I know there's folks that've wondered the same about protecting encryption via that path rather than by trying to classify it as protected speech. I can't say I love the priorities and values our current systems in the states represent.

spamizbad 4y ago

Sorry 2nd amendment-hating missle-grabbers: the only way to stop a bad guy with a T72 is a good guy with a Javelin* * or NLAW, Stugna, AT4, Carl Gustaf, general air superiority, etc. /s

lazide 4y ago
Man, can you imagine range days with a Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle? I can feel the noise ordinances from here!

palmetieri2000 4y ago

RE missiles and civilians (Non-US person here with a few questions): I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items, if the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny then why aren't the citizens allowed the appropriate arms to do so? How are the laws that allow the US gov to exclude citizens from owning these not 'un-constitutional'? I imagine the answer probably lies somewhere in the "too much risk for accidents or deliberate hostile use" territory. I hope this isn't inflammatory, not my intention, given what we continue to see re mass shootings, and the gun control proposals that happen afterwards it seems a bit like you have the worst of both worlds. Put differently, there are enough citizen firearms with enough firepower to facilitate individuals attacking soft targets with horrendous effect but not enough firearms or firepower for civilians to actually have any remotely likely potential of defeating a tyrannical US military (or even police force).

ceejayoz 4y ago
> I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items, if the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to fight tyranny then why aren't the citizens allowed the appropriate arms to do so? That's because it isn't actually the fundamental purpose. It was written at a time where the country didn't have a permanent standing army. That's why the amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
- willcipriano 4y ago
  ", the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You don't have to take my word for it, here is the latest from the supreme court: > "It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects" > “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” > "law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense." > "As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”" > "The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

kornhole 4y ago

A for profit weapons industry and a for profit health care industry create other problems such as more war and more sick and indebted citizens.