States Fight? TN Vows Payback on New Yorkers After 9/11 Memorial Gun Arrest

[/MSG/]

so you can't cite to where it pertains to citizens....

If you cannot make or import an item yurt, how am I to own it? Do I conjure it from nothing?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

If you cannot make or import an item yurt, how am I to own it? Do I conjure it from nothing?

still can't cite where US citizens can't own nukes.....

[/MSG/]

still can't cite where US citizens can't own nukes.....

When you tell me where I'm to get one, ill happily cite the treaty. Hell, ill steal the original treaty itself and youtube I for you.

[Rationalist]

oh, so you do believe the second amendment has limits....

I think it's safe to say that any weapon that can kill thousands or millions of people shouldn't be legal. It's kind of a no-brainer, Yurt.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How are the people supposed to fight off a government that has nukes without them? Without the freedom to own a nuclear weapon, there is no freedom.

[Rationalist]

How are the people supposed to fight off a government that has nukes without them? Without the freedom to own a nuclear weapon, there is no freedom.

It would be counterproductive for a tyrannical government to use nuclear weapons against its own people. For that reason alone, it is highly unlikely to occur. However, that argument could be reasonably applied to military weaponry such as tanks, mortars, etc.

[Disillusioned]

So, if the GOVERNMENT isn't the one suppressing this citizens rights, who is?

History, for the most part, tkae for example the Brady Bill, named after James Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot in 1981. The bill is designed to limit the gun purchases and slaes to dangerous individuals. legislation gets passed because people thought there was a need for it. And no it's not "big business" because they'd love if people bought more guns, that's more money for them.

[/MSG/]

I think it's safe to say that any weapon that can kill thousands or millions of people shouldn't be legal. It's kind of a no-brainer, Yurt.

The Constitution was set up to allow us Letters of marque. How would one go about obtaining such a letter without a warship? In modern parlance that would allow us aicraft carriers.

[/MSG/]

It would be counterproductive for a tyrannical government to use nuclear weapons against its own people. For that reason alone, it is highly unlikely to occur. However, that argument could be reasonably applied to military weaponry such as tanks, mortars, etc.

All of which are currently legal.

[Disillusioned]

All of which are currently legal.

Please locate somebody willing to spend over 80 million on a tank, and somebody willing to sell it to them.

[SmarterthanYou]

History, for the most part, tkae for example the Brady Bill, named after James Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot in 1981. The bill is designed to limit the gun purchases and slaes to dangerous individuals. legislation gets passed because people thought there was a need for it. And no it's not "big business" because they'd love if people bought more guns, that's more money for them.

the problem with this rationale is that by trying to limit 'dangerous' people, it infringes on the rights of everyone else that isn't dangerous, not that I don't think everyone should be thought to be dangerous. Being thought of as 'dangerous' necessarily requires more careful consideration in dealing with that individual.

[Rationalist]

The Constitution was set up to allow us Letters of marque. How would one go about obtaining such a letter without a warship? In modern parlance that would allow us aicraft carriers.

It's pointless to even discuss. Only a handful of people in the US could even afford an aircraft carrier, considering they cost around $10 billion. And that's assuming an uber wealthy individual has $10 billion in readily transferable capital, which is highly unlikely.

[/MSG/]

It's pointless to even discuss. Only a handful of people in the US could even afford an aircraft carrier, considering they cost around $10 billion. And that's assuming an uber wealthy individual has $10 billion in readily transferable capital, which is highly unlikely.

For a modern carrier yes, but say a WWII carrier. Those could be had for a few million (all were scrapped as far as I know though). That's well within the realm of possibilities.

[/MSG/]

Please locate somebody willing to spend over 80 million on a tank, and somebody willing to sell it to them.

Google The Big Sandy Shoot. Or Youtube it. More than a hand full of tank/artillery owners, actually firng said items (though mostly its machine guns).