What are the acceptable limits of the 2nd Amendment?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by em2nought

You're assuming that people that could afford one would be less responsible than our gov't?

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Balance that budget or else.... It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Balance that budget or else.... It doesn't take a nuke to ruin us. It's pretty obvious that we've lost our ability to check and balance.

That's always been true of any government, at any time. You were talking about nukes. Of course the thread is about something else entirely.

[ETR3(SS)]

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

[Sailor Steve]

They might invoke the militia clause and insist that you show up for regular training and be prepared for a call-up. I suppose if you're the right age you could just join the Air Guard or Air Force or Navy reserve.

[August]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Well let me play devils advocate here. Like it was said earlier, anything the military has the people should also be able to have. So in theory if I can afford the price tag of say an F/A-18 along with the additional price tag of the ordnance, FAA approved pilots license, fuel, maintenance, etc why not? I can already own a fully automatic weapon if I can afford the weapon itself along with the fees and permits.

Actually you can legally have all of that including ordinance as long as it's not explosive.

The particular model of Aircraft might be difficult to obtain seeing as it's being built under contract for the government atm but an older model fighter of slightly less capability is quite legal. Kinda like so called military "style" semi-automatics.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

They might invoke the militia clause and insist that you show up for regular training and be prepared for a call-up. I suppose if you're the right age you could just join the Air Guard or Air Force or Navy reserve.

True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.

Originally Posted by August

Actually you can legally have all of that including ordinance as long as it's not explosive.

The particular model of Aircraft might be difficult to obtain seeing as it's being built under contract for the government atm but an older model fighter of slightly less capability is quite legal. Kinda like so called military "style" semi-automatics.

Correct. But there are regulations regarding this that these warbirds as they're called be demiled. Which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.

[August]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.

Correct. But there are regulations regarding this that these warbirds as they're called be demiled. Which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place.

Depends on what you mean by "demiled". One might say that the lack of automatic fire "demils" my AR-15.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

True they might and that could be an assumed part of ownership of said plane. But I would still be a civilian. And if I joined the Guard or Reserve I don't actually own the equipment, the government does. Not to mention I would be subject to the whims of the military because I would be a part of the military.

All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.

That implies they were armed in response to the authorization but in those days merchant ships already had cannons and other armaments for self protection. Letters of Marque were just authorization to use their arms in an offensive role.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by August

Depends on what you mean by "demiled". One might say that the lack of automatic fire "demils" my AR-15.

Usually any weapons and mounts for weapons are removed along with possibly the avionics. Pretty much anything the military can use on another aircraft they strip out before selling.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

All true. Something that gets lost in that exact discussion is the Letter of Marque. During the Revolution and the war of 1812 Civilian owners of armed merchant ships (read 'cannons') were given official authorization to attack British Shipping, for the very reason that they had exactly the same cannons U.S. warships had. This left official warships free to act like warships, while armed citizens became privateers.

A good example. But who owned the cannon? It's clear that the merchants were privately owned, but it's the ownership of the cannon that makes the difference.

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Downwinders?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Starfish Prime?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Who did we kill there?

Starfish Prime?

Gojira.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Who did we kill there?

That is not an easy question to answer. No one, to my recollection, died due to either the nuclear blast or heat/fireball. But determining who died because of radioactive contamination is a lot harder to "prove". At various times, the courts have ruled that there were instances in which the US government was negligent in protecting human life during nuclear testing both domestically and internationally.

Here is one example

On 10 May 1984, U.S. District Court Judge Bruce S. Jenkins ruled that radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear tests in the 1950s had caused ten people to die of cancer and that the government was guilty of negligence in the way it had conducted the tests.

http://www.ctbto.org/?id=2664