If the 2nd amendment exists to keep the government honest why is it illegal to own man portable air defense systems?

If the 2nd amendment exists to keep the government honest why is it illegal to own man portable air defense systems?

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g
video.foxnews.com/v/1760654457001/
armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't know. Show me the law that specifically states that I can't own rocket launcher.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g

I am pretty sure americans can literally own attack choppers if they have the right paperwork, I know Arnie owns a tank

As any constitutional scholar will tell you, none of our rights are absolute. There are restrictions with every right

Then how can we keep the government honest?

Although to be fair many firearms restrictions are state based

You can own and operate a flamethrower in more states than not

With the proper FFL, you can own any weapon you want, MG42, Minigun, Abrams tank, or a German 88.

Are you 12 or do you not know how government works? If the government were always honest we'd never get shit done.

because niggers would be shooting down commercial airplanes.

It's the worst of the group that ruins it for everybody.

Checks and balances written into the constitution

>MG42, Minigun, Abrams tank, or a German 88.
I don't want that I want a man portable air defense system.

Then what is point of 2nd amendment?

What part of any weapon you want don't you understand?

Thanks you're correct. Most states leave that up to the Sheriff of the county. Generally, no matter what you own, you just notify your Sheriff, pay a fee, and you own your legally purchased tank. It always cracks me up with these shitty gun laws that get passed when I can own a fucking tank.

Also, fuck OP, this is a shill post.

But I'll go to prison if I get one?

You are correct.

The only thing standing between you and a MANPADS is a $200 tax stamp and finding someone who will sell you one.

If you don't have the proper FFL

If that's true why hasn't anyone challenged the law in court?

TBQH it would be much easier for the government to neutralize an attack helicopter or any aircraft for that matter rather than, lets say, 10,000 people in a city of one million armed with assault rifles and armaments. Guerrilla warfare is nearly impossible to combat which is why a bunch of rice farmers and dunecoons have held off the most advance militaries in the world with some dusty old soviet era weaponry.

How dare you imply you can own my sexual identity

My bad, read the question wrong, but same basics apply

Challenged what in court? No one is shooting down aircraft because the only people that can legally obtain one are top tier gun dealers and government contractors.

This law Are you aware of any private citizens that own a functional one?

>December 2nd, 2002
This was enacted a little more than a year after 9/11, most definitely in an attempt to preempt terroristic actions with AA launchers. With so much fear around aircraft related terror at the time, the government didn't want to deal with another shitstorm if Mohammed decided to take out a 747 with his legally purchased recreational Igla™. Even still, I suppose this is an infringement of the 2nd as it keeps the people from being capable of adquetly arming themselves against the government. However, there are still plenty of other legal arms capable of killing aerial targets.

Not a lawyer but that law seem to state it's illegal to have the weapon for the purpose to use against an aircraft or threaten use against an aircraft.
>and threaten to use
wouldn't want to bet my ass on it though

>(3)Excluded conduct.—This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A)

>conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or

(B)

>conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof

That wouldn't include most people right?
Unless you're a defense contractor or LEO.

I think that's paired with the posses right before it.

How do you known that it is illegal?
Do you just assume it is?
Sage

Literally two posts into the thread.

Because we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, not artillery. In those days rockets were well known and used in war (the rockets' red glare) and were a form of artillery.

So, your problem, like most libtards, is that you don't understand the technical language used. Please obtain a dictionary from that time period, and a Black's Law, and you'll understand what was meant.

Also in the same vein, 'well regulated' simply meant that all the civilians should use a common caliber in their firearms. It had nothing to do with red tape and various laws to restrict weapon types, it simply meant that all civilians should have the same caliber weapons.

Today, if we had judges who weren't libtard globalist activists, this law would be understood such that we'd be require to keep a 5.56mm NATO firearm around.

The Second Amendment's been the victim of what you'd call a Harvard Method attack, where you gradually change and undermine language itself if necessary to change your laws.

These people are traitors, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just a poor confused millennial libtard.

Scalia said that arms could include hand held missile launchers.

>we'd be require to keep a 5.56mm NATO firearm around
I wish we could get more people to think like this. It's not that firearms are a right,though they are, it's that they are a responsibility to yourself and society. We're suppose to be able to defend society,our neighbors and our families.

Who would pay for it?

Because the government has been infringing on our rights for a long time now.

>responsibility
Not everything is based on economics. Some things are much more basic. Us vs Them, Us vs Mother Nature. Law vs Chaos.Society vs Anarchy.

Because those things are actually dangerous for their toys

He was referring to the Gyrojet pistol which the ATF classifies as a firearm.

>I wish we could get more people to think like this. It's not that firearms are a right,though they are, it's that they are a responsibility to yourself and society. We're suppose to be able to defend society,our neighbors and our families.
This.

In the British colonial days in town the weapons were kept at the armory, but most people had something at home illicitly as well. This was frowned upon by the colonial authorities but people felt that they had the right to defense of their home.

You would pay for your own firearm. If you can't prioritize and get ahold of one, maybe you're not fit to be in the militia?

>He was referring to the Gyrojet pistol which the ATF classifies as a firearm.
No he wasn't.
>WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
>SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
>WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
>SCALIA: Very carefully.
video.foxnews.com/v/1760654457001/

>You would pay for your own firearm. If you can't prioritize and get ahold of one, maybe you're not fit to be in the militia?
I guess I misunderstood, I thought you meant every adult citizen would be required to "keep a 5.56mm NATO firearm around".

>man portable

Ah so he's stating that there's a difference between arms and artillery, just as I said.

Again he never advocated for them, just that there would have to be a question about their classification.

Look up the Gyrojet pistol, there are in fact hand held rocket launchers and they are quite legal to own.

>I guess I misunderstood, I thought you meant every adult citizen would be required to "keep a 5.56mm NATO firearm around".
Yes and to pay for it themselves.

Maybe people who are so lazy or feckless that they can't save up a couple hundred bucks should be demoted to a non-voting, non-citizen status?

>>SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided


>Davy Crocket confirmed constutional
Time to fill out paperwork for my recreational citybuster. Lets see foreign powers try to invade when there is a mini-nuke behind every blade of grass!

>not hand held

You implied that missiles were firmly in artillery but he seemed to focus on it being hand-held.
He doesn't seem to treat a 100 round/min gun any different than hand held rocket launcher, both would be decided in the future if need be.
Let's just have land owners vote.

Design is 'recoilless' so... technically...

Could totally sling that over your shoulder, just... need to brace yourself against a good wall of something and clear for backblast. Man portable changes if you get some gains (and you'll have to because the warhead is about 70-ish lb.)

Jokes on you, its not ilegal

Just expensive

And Government wins (buys) exclusive ownership contracts to companies that make these weapons.

Nothing stopping you from out bidding the government and winning contracts yourself.

They also retain rights after service years are up. Think Apple and AT&T

When Iphone came out, Sprint, Verizon, etc could not buy Apple and sell their phones. It wasnt illegal the way you think though, AT&T just bought the exclusive right for a year to sell them before anyone else was allowed to. Or think PS4/XBO timed exclusives for games and DLC.

You can buy right now Vietnam era aircraft. In 100 years F22's will be for sale to private civilians.

Nothing is off limits. Tanks, artillery, etc.

Nukes too, just need to be allowed permission from IAEA and leading member nations, get approved by government to use land for enrichment, assuming you own rights to unclaimed uranium deposits the government doesnt already own, process and refine your own shit in your own facility while follwoing safety mandates and you can own your very own nuke.

Faggot

>its not ilegal
It's forbidden by law, it is illegal.
>You can buy right now Vietnam era aircraft.
Decommissioned/modified or intact? Honestly curious.

>You implied that missiles were firmly in artillery but he seemed to focus on it being hand-held.
>He doesn't seem to treat a 100 round/min gun any different than hand held rocket launcher, both would be decided in the future if need be.
The question is about whether it's an arm or artillery.

And I agree, as a land owner myself, I have a more vested interest than a renter-slave or a vagrant.

Even so, the question is broader - artillery is designed to produce an explosive or area effect downrange, designed to inflict damage to a large radius. I would guess (not a complete expert) that there is an exact, internationally agreed-upon definition already.

Mig21 sold for 70k a while ago

A phantom in the UK sold for 1.4 mil and 1.7 mil here is USA

You can buy some current military vehicles and most older ones, many aren't restricted except if you try to export them.

It's a vehicle, not a weapon. Owning a functioning cannon is a different matter, most have to be demilled.

armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

Wouldnt do anything against an Apache anyway.

Also it's legal to own a gatling gun, but it has to be made before a certain year.

In fact in the USA you can just buy and sell antique weapons without any kind of ID check at all, and mail them through the US Mail. Same with black powder weapons.

It shouldn't be.

>but you wouldn't let someone own nukes, would you?
Why yes, yes I would.

> MBT LAW scrub on the left

fucking noobs ruin the game

>once chance at life
>born in a noguns nanny state

Move here, get your citizenship, and vote for anti gun-control reps.

you can own a fighter jet here as long as it doesn't have any weapons on it

at least you have islam and the queen

>Britain isn't musli-