cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
hardnox604008
Advisor

the case for Stinger missiles

We begin with the premise that the constitution guarantees the ownership of a level of armament that is, rather than technologically equivalent with the "original intent" of the framers, actually the equivalent to what a potentialy repressive government might posess. And of course then we have a government asserting the right to kill citizens without due process via drones then we can logically conclude that the constitution guarantees the right for citizens to own shoulder fired SAMs in the defense of liberty.

 

The constitutional defense of liberty clearly trumps any incidental threat to the public safety posed by said armaments falling into the hands of those with more malign intent than the clear eyed patriots for whom they were intended. It may be tough on business in Las Vegas when nobody will get on an airplane but this is liberty wer're talking about here so no price is too steep.

 

Actually half joking and half not. After all, on 9/11 19 Saudi goatherders managed to overpower 8 military trained pilots armed solely with boxcutters and boxcutters are still legal.

29 Replies
Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I have no problem with local militias owning stingers. Every county should be able to put a militia together that would stop a Nazi style onslaught or at least slow it down.

 

I doubt that George Washington kept a cannon at Mt. Vernon, but I have not finished the biography I am reading. Jefferson probably did have Monticello armed to the hilt. Maybe you can enlighten us on this. Maybe Time magazine is going to do a piece on what weapons the founding fathers kept in their possession. Then we will all know with upmost certainty.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Here is an easier solution that might interest you.

 

The US government within the borders of the nation may not own or possess any weapon not completely legal to every citizen (felons and loiterers excluded of course).     Excepting in the case of a congressional declared war against of foreign NATION.  So, if you want me to own nothing more than a sharpened rock then no government agent can own anything more than a sharpened rock.

 

Feel better?

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles


@hardnox604008 wrote:

We begin with the premise that the constitution guarantees the ownership of a level of armament that is, rather than technologically equivalent with the "original intent" of the framers, actually the equivalent to what a potentialy repressive government might posess. And of course then we have a government asserting the right to kill citizens without due process via drones then we can logically conclude that the constitution guarantees the right for citizens to own shoulder fired SAMs in the defense of liberty.

 

The constitutional defense of liberty clearly trumps any incidental threat to the public safety posed by said armaments falling into the hands of those with more malign intent than the clear eyed patriots for whom they were intended. It may be tough on business in Las Vegas when nobody will get on an airplane but this is liberty wer're talking about here so no price is too steep.

 

Actually half joking and half not. After all, on 9/11 19 Saudi goatherders managed to overpower 8 military trained pilots armed solely with boxcutters and boxcutters are still legal.


That makes a lot of sense, you can't own a shot gun because you can't own a stinger missile

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

The logic is suspect. 

 

The guy next door has a $400 deer rifle he could shoot me with using a $.75 round.......but doesn't.

the guy next door has a use one time stinger that cost $38,000 and he might use it on me?

 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Sam, I'd go along with that.

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I think it would be simply great for the above average guys like you to own a stinger missle. That way you could knock down airforce one if you chose to do so or just a democrats campaign plane if that was your inclination.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

Ya know, it really is more challenging  to stand in opposition to repressive government policies when a) most of the other people who are opposed to it were just alrighty fine with similar policies proposed by white christianists and b) those same opponents are in the recent habit of a lot of loose talk about insurrection.

 

One must (sigh) stand on principle but it still sure would be fun to see a few of these guys get smoked by a drone.

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I suspect that in real life most are as courageous as Cheney, Rush, Mitt et al.

 

You actually have to give GWB a little credit- even though his Dad got him in the Air Guard he flew a darn tricky airplane and until he lost his nerve about landing it and went AWOL he served his time.

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: the case for Stinger missiles

I know you're speaking in hyperbole to make a point, but all us white-winged gun nuts were happy "pre-Sandy Hook" without Howitzers, no one was asking for stingers, not even the NRA. 0bama killed more people with drones in 8 months than GWB did in an entire 8 yrs. With the election and re elected of 0bama, the door to the chicken house has been left ajar, he's a different ballgame. This has nothing to do with Bush's completion, he was just a far less threat to freedom, unless you want free healthcare and freedom to marry another dude, neither of which I value more than my .30'06.