This is why I like to have a compromise in my car audio system….

cool site…

So let me understand your limits. Would you really forbid any type of government control. How about the situations described by factoid? I just want to understand how far you would stretch the “no interference” argument.

No but the government does not restrict my ability to change doctors either. I’m stuck with the police force I got.

Unfortunately that has a number of unintended consequences.

1) The TSA has no business restricting your right to bear arms aboard commercial aircraft. That means, of course, that Ahmed in seat 4B can carry his bazooka on board (hoping he can fit it in the overhead bin).

2) The TSA has the right to confiscate your 3.5 oz bottle of shampoo, but if you explain that the shampoo bottle in fact contains liquid explosives, you have a second amendment right to carry that stuff on board.

3) When you enter the country and the customs guy asks you about the five pounds of glowing reddish powder in your suitcase, you should answer very carefully. You should explain that the radioactive material is a replacement part for a dirty bomb (which makes it legal) as opposed to being just stuff you plan on using for your home power plant (which requires all sorts of federal, state and local licenses).

4) While their gas mileage sucks, tanks are an excellent choice of conveyance for short trips. Since they enjoy a second amendment exemption from licensing, emissions, insurance and drunk driving laws, they are perfect for a trip to the bar. Also a tank is a really safe vehicle for your teenagers to get driving experience before they get their drivers license. Just remember: it’s not a weapon unless the gun works, so always keep a couple of rounds in the turret for that pesky cop demanding a test shot.

If you think the government isn’t doing a good enough job with regards to national security, then I think the best solution isn’t to give everybody a bazooka and a suitcase nuke but instead to try to fix the army or the government.

Yeah Let the government save us from all mishaps. Because you know we are not adults, we can not possiblly handle weapons in a safe secure manner. Let’s all sacrifice our freedoms because maybe, something bad might on an off chance happen due to that freedom. The government knows better than us. They would never place weapons in an unsafe manner. Like nuclear warheads would never ever be placed live on an airplane and flown across the entire friggin country because our government are the adults we are the children

But I guarantee you that if there was a citizen with a bazooka, the police would appreciate if that citizen took that tank out instead of waiting for them to do it.

My issue with gun control is that I hope I never actually NEED a gun. But if I do NEED a gun, I want the best dang gun that mankind has ever created. I don’t want the government telling me that I can only have a BB gun against an invading army. I don’t expect to ever need to use one. But if I do need one, it better be a REALLY good one.

ThackerAgency on January 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM

The only problem is that the odds are you’ll never have to shoot at a tank in your lifetime, but instead that your kid will find the bazooka and accidentaly launch it by mistake. Or that some other unfortunate accident will happen.

If you think we need to all have bazookas, I think we are better off either: 1- drastically expanding the size of the army/national guard or 2- making military service mandatory for everyone.

http://www.savethesecond.com/

A petition to protect our 2nd amendment rights.

Seems we’re allowed to own single shot black powder guns easier than anything, or are allowed to “hunt” as much as we want and be registered and tracked etc. Everything we own has a number affixed to it for tracking. You can’t drive your car, legally own a gun [hold that thought], use your computer, or make a phone call without some sort of monitoring. Sure some of this is to track the crime, but thats a convenient by-product of tracking US.

Is there anything such as “legally owning a gun”? As a citizen you can own arms . Its your right. Why do we have to explain why we would want to have a hi-powered weapon in our home? I dont know where ya’ll live but around my area home invasion is not a new phrase. The police have all moved their radio frquencies where we can’t hear what they are doing, and if you ask them they want to know why YOU want to know. I used to be able to ask a cop, “hey what went on at the shopping center the other day?”, and he’d tell me. Now they can’t talk about anything.

One last note. Look at all of your big street intersections folks. Are there THAT many accidents that we need all of those intersection cameras? And who is storing this information? If you dont have cameras all over the place near you, its coming. We have them now in intersections all over this small little town I am in. WTF? Walmart is still getting robbed everyday. So what are the cameras doing for me?

Sorry folks, but I see all of this terrorist protection, being double-edged with a growing lack of privacy for us to the point police can look into my car to see if I have my seatbelt on, but thats not all they are looking for. They now have the ability to stop you, search you, violate your rights, and after the illegal search, they can leave you to pick up your things while they skate off and eye another would-be suspect of their choosing.

As far as the 2nd ammendment, if a criminal can walk in my house with the possibility of taking my life, then I’m going to have the right to be sitting waiting with appropriate weaponry required to stop the intrusion, presuming a mans home is still his castle, or do we dial 911 and wait? mmmm the wrong person will be found dead on the floor by the time these super-empowered cops show up.

Which part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed“ do you not understand?

Only a historically ignorant fool would fail to fear a government that does not want its citizens owning firearms.

And shame on George W. Bush for allowing his DOJ to make this argument.

If they would spend more time enforcing our nation’s immigration laws instead of sticking their noses in places they don’t belong, we would all be better off.

Imagine a country like China detonating a nuclear weapon on Washington DC with all your elected officials going up in smoke with it.

And this would be bad because?

A “bazooka” would do plenty. Take out the tracks of the Abrams, and it becomes a sitting duck. Then either weld the door hatch closed, or ignite thermite on top of the turret. Problem solved.

But if so, he ought to say so and you should stay out of it unless you are his sock puppet.

csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Speaking for myself, if I have to act in the capacity of somebody’s sock puppet to further the cause of freedom and liberty, I will gladly do so. It’s too bad you don’t feel the same way, CSDeven.

Thanks for your efforts, Unseen. Nice to see you back here again.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/12/brits-ready-to-presume-consent-to-organ-donation/

good points so the more dangerous those small arms are i.e LAWS, claymores, granades, rpgs, C-4, the better the chance of an insurcency winning right? And if so than therefore it is in freedom’s interest to enable the population to be so armed.

But the word bazooka is just so cool. lol

Fine a LAW it will be or anti-take missle, or rpg or whatever.

unseen on January 13, 2008 at 2:08 AM

Since some have complained about bazookas doing “squat” to an Abrams, might I suggest instead using the term LAW?

csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Let’s see. I have a bazooka, a tank is coming towards me or is threatening my neighborhood. I have a chance to stop the nutcase in the tank. I could a) fire the bazooka at the tank or b) let the tank continue on its destruction hoping and praying that “someone” in authority will protect me and my loved ones. Hmmm decsions decsions….

I think I will go with A.

I think anyone that has the ability to protect themselves, their families and does not use that ability because of some unknown fear of something maybe going wrong is the problem not the solution and that person is stuck on stupid.

Ok, you two have degraded this topic to nothing but personal insults.

Have at it.

csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:01 AM

Thick? Psych evals? Sock puppet? Drop the act. You really have returned to the same kind of irrelevant baiting and dodging you did when you insulted Fred’s wife’s looks.

But, as has been proper pointed out, the purpose of the 2nd is to allow us to defend ourselves from our government. The only way to do that is to ensure that we could have a fighting chance to beat them back. Well, without tactical nukes at our disposal, we can’t do much can we? So, what’s the use of a second amendment if it is effectively null and void?

Now, let me get this straight. A populace armed with only small arms could never, under any circumstances harm the U.S. military.

Was that your point?

The hypothetical U.S. Military vs. U.S. Civilian war wouldn’t likely be a “war of annihilation” would it? So an insurgency might be a valid method? Being armed might not be of any use against airstrikes, but against a totalitarian police action… maybe it’d be worth rethinking?

Or do you have some hypothetical situation where a Dictator takes over the U.S. Government, not in order to run the U.S. as his personal empire, but to have the military engage in killing off the populace?

I can think of countries that were taken by a dictator because the populace was unarmed, or functionally unarmed; and the Government took over and “removed” malcontents. I can’t think of any dictator who did so to simply kill off all the civilians in a military action…

So, from the probabilities (ok, given the whole thing is wildly improbable to start with, but still) the probability would be that small-arms could be sufficient for insurgency against the police state.