Should we be free to purchase tanks and fighter jets?

[Sultan Of Swing]

Considering the Second Amendment, I ask this in seriousness, not trying to be facetious.

This is especially for those whose chief justification for the second amendment is that we can protect ourselves from the government, and the government shouldn't have all the guns.

Well first off, as many people point out, what good would guns do against a government that has missiles and tanks and jets?

So in that case, strictly holding to the Second Amendment, don't we have the right to purchase tanks and fighter jets? Where does it end? If you support gun rights for the chief reason of preventing government oppression, how do you justify any limits whatsoever? Shouldn't we be allowed everything, from aircraft carriers to nuclear missiles? (Man I would love to own an aircraft carrier, that actually sounds incredible)

And this isn't without historical precedent either. It's not like the Founding Fathers had no idea of anything more powerful than a musket. Citizens were free to own warships back in the day, fully fitted with cannons and all the works, and could do massive damage to a coastal city if they really wanted to.

(Oh, and a quick Google search is telling me that some current US citizens apparently actually do own tanks and fighter jets, but it seems there are still heavy restrictions in what models you can buy and what you can even do with it, so the question still applies)

 

[Terese]

Why would one want a tank or a fire jet? These items are for wars, not for personal use.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Why would one want a tank or a fire jet? These items are for wars, not for personal use.

Regardless of why, should a person be free to purchase one?

The more cautious types could purchase one as an insurance policy in case the government decides to turn on the citizens, they can whip out their personal airforce.

 

[Iti oj]

**** it I'm down.. just no nukes

 

[Iti oj]

Why would one want a tank or a fire jet? These items are for wars, not for personal use.

I bet you Syrians wish they had personal ownership of them .war is waged on people .

 

[Terese]

I bet you Syrians wish they had personal ownership of them .war is waged on people .

I ain't Syrian! I'm Turkish! Civilians should not own such vehicles of destruction for personal use...

 

[fantome profane]

**** it I'm down.. just no nukes

You can have my nuke when you pry it from my hot radioactive dead hand.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are actually private citizens who own tanks & fighter jets.
But they're more exotic toys or collector items in museums than capable weapons.
When I worked at Northrop, there was a guy who built his own F5.
It was similar to this one.....

Those are fine aircraft, but very spendy things to maintain.

Anyway, I look at the 2nd Amendment ("2A") from the perspective of a constitutional originalist, ie, what the framers intended.
All I've seen (which isn't scholarly at all) suggests that they intended militarily capable (state of the art) small arms.
This would mean we can have an M16, but not missiles with a VX warhead.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hmm... I think everything should be moderated in this life. Everything should have rules, allowances, restrictions, penalties...etc. That's a general thought.

I mean real moderation, not as in allow rocket launchers to civilians and asking them to moderate that!

Accordingly, I think civilians should not get their hands on weapons at all. I mean, even ~5 year olds shoot people, thanks to allowing guns. What if is was a rocket launcher?

Exceptions are always there of course, but that should not be considered so easily too.

I'm personally okay as long as candy is allowed for civilians

 

[Iti oj]

Governments have proven themselves Untrustworthy with such weapons, what gives them the right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Governments have proven themselves Untrustworthy with such weapons, what gives them the right?

They take the right.

I considered buying a light Belgian tank once, when a friend put it up for sale.
But I was low on funds.
Dang.....it was a wheeled tank, so I could've driven it in antique/classic car rallies.

 

[BSM1]

Considering the Second Amendment, I ask this in seriousness, not trying to be facetious.

This is especially for those whose chief justification for the second amendment is that we can protect ourselves from the government, and the government shouldn't have all the guns.

Well first off, as many people point out, what good would guns do against a government that has missiles and tanks and jets?

So in that case, strictly holding to the Second Amendment, don't we have the right to purchase tanks and fighter jets? Where does it end? If you support gun rights for the chief reason of preventing government oppression, how do you justify any limits whatsoever? Shouldn't we be allowed everything, from aircraft carriers to nuclear missiles? (Man I would love to own an aircraft carrier, that actually sounds incredible)

And this isn't without historical precedent either. It's not like the Founding Fathers had no idea of anything more powerful than a musket. Citizens were free to own warships back in the day, fully fitted with cannons and all the works, and could do massive damage to a coastal city if they really wanted to.

(Oh, and a quick Google search is telling me that some current US citizens apparently actually do own tanks and fighter jets, but it seems there are still heavy restrictions in what models you can buy and what you can even do with it, so the question still applies)

Yes.

 

[Iti oj]

Yes.

Bah we agree. How does it feel to agree with a leftists like me?

 

[Sunstone]

I envision an eventual Conservative paradise in which every rich man or woman has the means to set him or herself up as a warlord and rule their private fiefdom carved out from the former states.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well first off, as many people point out, what good would guns do against a government that has missiles and tanks and jets?

War & revolution can proceed in multiple ways.
If government is determined to wipe us out, & all in
gov support this, then small arms might play no roll.

But imagine another scenario....
Revolutionaries live among the collaborators.
Government cannot just bomb population centers, lest they kill friendlies, & lose support.
Fighting then becomes close quartered & scattered.
Many in the military would sympathize with the revolutionaries.
Small arms are ideal for this.

 

[BSM1]

Bah we agree. How does it feel to agree with a leftists like me?

All warm and fuzzy.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Governments have proven themselves Untrustworthy with such weapons, what gives them the right?

Maybe they don't have the right in it, but normally they have that right millions of years before civilians and bystanders do. Otherwise the latter two could form militias. I think such a thing already is there with the gangs here and there.

 

[DawudTalut]

Some display:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ished--Americans-visit-year-museum-built.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A main battle tank would be handy when there are traffic jams, I suppose.

 

[esmith]

I look at it this way if you can afford to purchase a fighter, whether it is a piston or jet powered, and maintain it to the specifications prescribed by the FAA then go for it. Now arming it, as long as you follow the "current" regulations governing weapons and can afford it feel free to do so. I really don't see the harm that it would cause; sure a very wealthy nut or group of nuts could purchase and arm a fighter just as your average.cash endowed, terrorist could purchase and use a MANPADS but I don't see your average millionaire wanting to use their toy(loosely used word) for anything but the shear enjoyment of owning and flying one.
Now, as far as tanks or any other similar type weapons platform. Sure, why not. One might find it hard to find an area that they could use to operate their tank or similar weapons platform. We have a hard enough time finding areas to use OHV's let alone a monster as big as a tank.