Does/Should the 2nd Amendment Extend to Missiles & ICBMs?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by guzhogi, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #1
    Saw this question on Facebook a while ago and thought I'd ask it here: does/should the 2nd amendment extend to things like Apache helicopters, regular missiles & ICBMs?

    While I believe people have a right to protect themselves, the thought of people using ICBMs is scary. There are so many stories about reckless killing with just guns, knives, and small weapons like that, what'll happen if people could drive tanks around? What happens to collateral damage? Will the person driving the tank or whatever be held responsible?
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    Yes, if you take the Second Amendment as the right for the citizens to maintain arms against a foe. It matters not if that foe is your own government or another, you better arm yourselves to the same level as your adversary.

    Realistically, who's got the money for that ****??

    Up The Republic.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, some local militias had cannons. Not many, but some. Private shipowners, if they could afford it, had cannons on board.

    And, at the time, infantry was the predominant fighting force. Parity between citizens and the military was standard, since at the time a rifle was a rifle was a rifle.

    It was not until 1934 that such things as machine guns became an issue. Prior years, mail your check to the seller and the postman would deliver your Tommy gun to your door.

    Blackhawks? They're affordable if you're as rich as Oprah or George Soros. I doubt that they could afford an ICBM.
     
  4. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    You've brought up a great point.

    Should we increase firearm taxes/prices even further to defer people from buying them?
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    Oh I think the Arms Lobby might have something to say about that.
     
  6. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #6
    As far as owning an ICBM? I don't know any law that limits ownership. I know you there are laws on use of guided ordnance/rockets but I believe you can get a licenses/permits for that. The real issue you have are the warheads.

    As far as owning an Apache helicopter that is legal as far as I know as well. The problem is finding a seller. The other issue is getting FAA to issue a flight ready/safety certificate, I think you could register it as Experimental. Again, the air-frame is legal but the missiles, rockets, bombs and 30mm machine gun are another story.


    Did you recently fall into some money, are you looking for something specific?

    Edit: Not as flashy as the Apache Longbow but I think there are some Bell Cobra helicopters in private hands.
     
  7. APlotdevice, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2014

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #7
    People whose worth is in the hundreds of billions of dollars could conceivably purchase one or two.

    Speaking of cost... when the Constitution was ratified, a single rifle would have cost a small fortune. Remember that each guns had to be produced by hand, as the methods for mass production hadn't been invented yet. This fact had the effect of limiting gun ownership to organized military forces and the wealthy.
     
  8. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #8
    What historical information/evidence are you basing that statement off of?

    This paper form 2002 states that with the surviving information it really isn't known how many people really owned firearms during that time.

    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

    Do you have any new data on this?
     
  9. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #9
    People with that sort of money already own then, through their vassals in power. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    I've not looked at colonial-era gun prices, but in 1873 a common wage was a dollar a day. A Colt Single-Action Army cost $13. Many "pocket pistols" were even cheaper. Hunt up an old Sears & Roebuck catalog: $12 shotguns.

    I suspect that most any working man of the 1700s could afford a firearm if he wanted one. Firearms have only become expensive with the decline of the purchasing power of the dollar during these last forty years.

    As late as 1982, a full-auto Thompson was $760 plus sales tax plus the $200 tax to F Troop.
     
  11. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #11
    Just out of curiosity, who do you think has a net worth of "hundreds of billions"?

    Anybody?
     
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #12
    Oprah on the bottom end at around $2.5 billlion. Carlos Slim at around $30 or $40 billion. The Rothschilds at around $270 billion. Some Chinese lady, the world's richest woman, inherited some $20 billion. The Saudi royal family? No telling.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #13
    Well, the unit cost for the LGM-118 Peacekeeper was $70 million, though the only remaining rockets have been converted into Minotaur IVs. A launch with a Minotaur is $50 million.

    As for the House of Saud, estimates seem to pin them over $1.4 trillion, the majority of the wealth split between about 2,000 though there are about 15,000 in the family.

    The point being, they could easily afford a few LGM-118s.

    That said, owning an ICBM would be the 18th Century equivalent of owning a fleet.

    The more interesting question is, what about MANPADS (man portable air-defense systems) like Stingers or high-explosive weapons like RPGs. Does the Second Amendment expand to include these weapons since they are the cannonade of the modern era?
     
  14. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    It will cost more to support and maintain the ICBM then just buy the rocket.


    FYI, anyone can legally own and use a breech loaded cannon.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #15
    Certainly, which is why I included the Minotaur launch cost, it gives us some context for the cost of owning your very own ICBM rocket.

    That's a good point.
     
  16. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Sailing beyond the sunset
    #16
    I think that applies only to a muzzle loaded cannon:
    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#muzzleloading-cannons
    Q: Are muzzleloading cannons classified as destructive devices?
    Generally, no. Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA.
    [26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11]

    I think a breech-loaded cannon would be classified as a destructive device or a non-antique artillery piece. I realize that breech-loaded cannon predate 1898, so I'm not entirely sure and I don't have a citation.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    A friend of mine built 3" muzzle-loading cannons. Lathe-turned aluminum projectiles. I've seen three-shot cloverleafs at 100 yards and near-center first round hits at 1,000.

    You definitely do NOT want to be the target of one of those. :)
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    That's a good-sized rock.

    We've come sooooo far.
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    I spent time as a squad leader on an M-16 Halftrack (four .50-cal) way back when, in Korea. If you, as an owner, have that sort of crew-served system, lemme told ya: It's a flaming PITA. There is always something which needs fixing.

    On a once in a while basis, however, full-auto is a fun way to turn money into noise. :D
     
  20. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
    Your right, muzzle end.
    Got my breech end confused with my muzzle.
    Guess it shows which end I am talking out of. :D
     
  21. Curun macrumors 6502

    Curun

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #21
    Oh hell no. You have to go pretty extreme to find right-wingers who want anything explosive to be obtainable.

    On one hand, I think the many of the framers of our republic probably did intend such. I vaguely recall stories of wealthy business/land owners who acquired canons for fighting back the English.

    I think you might find more common support that the 2nd Amendment should progressively follow 'Service Rifle' and 'side-arm' development and use by regular infantry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_rifle#United_States

    Which federal laws restrict to 1940's era technology, and in the Northeast many restrict to 1894 tech or worse.

    It would be as if the US restricted the 1st amendment to 1940's technology, print. Excluding the Internet, and took full reign to censor, restrict, or require licensing for Internet communication.
     

Share This Page