With my ideas, it won't matter how powerful the military is

[Shrantic]

Now, in previous threads of mine, I've stated why people who want to own rocket launchers are discriminated against, why my constitutional rights are being squashed by hoplophobes, and now, I'm going to do both of those one better.

All American Citizens should be required to own rocket launchers. The logic for this is air-tight.

Now, the second amendment to the Constitution is there for a very obvious reason- to make sure that we could overthrow the government if they were to ever strip us of our natural born rights as human beings. Right now, that would be damn near impossible even if half of the armed forces were to defect- the military just has too much weapons technology for us to fight with our turkey guns and hunting rifles. It doesn't matter which way you look at it, no realistic number of rednecks shooting tanks with .30-06 rifles is going to do anything to it. When the American Colonists fought off the British, they did it with similar (not identical) weaponry. If the Colonists were using sticks and stones, and the British were using repeating firearms, we would have never won our independence. And yet, that's the situation we're in right now. Only we haven't accidentally elected a number of tyrants. Yet.

Now, first, on the weapons technology. I don't think a layman could pilot a stealth bomber. However, with the proper training, they damn well could. So, I think it should be legal for people to purchase the same kind of technology the military can purchase, with the only requirements being their sanity, and becoming trained in what they're going to be using.

However, that can be rather invasive on someone's life. So it shouldn't be required. Rocket launchers, on the other hand, are non-invasive. Everyone should be required to own a rocket launcher in case we accidentally elect tyrants who oppress us. In that case, we would have more than enough firepower to fight for our rights as American citizens. No longer would California be the b***h state of a hypothetical tyrant, with their silly right-restricting gun laws that would leave them at the mercy of any oppressive force if they did not have the American military to fall back on.

So, what do you think of this plan? Rocket launchers for all, and domestic tranquility will be assured in a way that gives us more freedom than a dictatorship, and more safety than anarchy.

[That Cursed Number]

Shrantic

Only we haven't accidentally elected a number of tyrants. Yet.

If not accidentally then how?

[CH1YO]

Shrantic

that's the situation we're in right now. Only we haven't accidentally elected a number of tyrants. Yet.

I may be misreading this but did you honestly just call the British rule of the colonies tyrannical?
King George III?

[museik]

I wish the world had more people like you

[gahad]

we need more weapon"s able e use rocket launcher"s and therefore we could abuse the power weapon"s no weapon"s for civilizations

[Ninth Pariah]

So, we are going to shoot down ICBMs with RPG-70s, then? Even a GRAIL doesn't have that kind of accuracy and range. Civilians need access to much greater armaments.

[Xeno Incognito]

Without some form of government, we would be living in a State of Nature. We offer each other protection by agreeing to a Social Contract, giving up some individual rights for the greater good of society.

Handing everyone a rocket launcher would defeat the point of a social contract in the first place. Giving everyone rocket launchers would enable them to commit destruction on a widespread scale and would lead to chaos. Even if rocket launchers were effective in leveling the playing field, that would just result in a shift from a federal republic to anarchy.

[Ratreoz]

You could also just create a democracy.

[Velkyn Faer]

Why do I need a requirement of sanity to pilot a stealth bomber but I don't to own a rocket launcher?

I see the point that you are trying to make, but I know you can see the obvious flaw in the fact that if people are right now commiting crimes with handguns and other legal firearms, how much greater would the impact be if those people had access to rockets?

Besides, assuming that these armed citizens don't kill each other off before the need to stage a coup, the fact that they all have rocket launchers does not mean that they can fight off trained soldiers who are trying to stop you. Sure, you can take down those tanks and helicopters with a well-placed shot, but the soldiers on the ground are still far better armed and trained than you are, and have all kinds of support (artillery, air, etc.) that can tear you apart.

[augustine17]

i'd rebel but nukes and the F-16 shut me up

[demonbarber14]

Velkyn Faer

Why do I need a requirement of sanity to pilot a stealth bomber but I don't to own a rocket launcher?

I see the point that you are trying to make, but I know you can see the obvious flaw in the fact that if people are right now commiting crimes with handguns and other legal firearms, how much greater would the impact be if those people had access to rockets?

Besides, assuming that these armed citizens don't kill each other off before the need to stage a coup, the fact that they all have rocket launchers does not mean that they can fight off trained soldiers who are trying to stop you. Sure, you can take down those tanks and helicopters with a well-placed shot, but the soldiers on the ground are still far better armed and trained than you are, and have all kinds of support (artillery, air, etc.) that can tear you apart.

[Shrantic]

Ninth Pariah

So, we are going to shoot down ICBMs with RPG-70s, then? Even a GRAIL doesn't have that kind of accuracy and range. Civilians need access to much greater armaments.

No, but with 100,000,000 americans with rocket launchers and scattered throughout the land that the tyrant wants to keep, it's not like they can just bomb us. Also, I don't care how good your defenses are, they're not going to stand up to thousands of rocket launchers.

[Shrantic]

Velkyn Faer

Why do I need a requirement of sanity to pilot a stealth bomber but I don't to own a rocket launcher?

I see the point that you are trying to make, but I know you can see the obvious flaw in the fact that if people are right now commiting crimes with handguns and other legal firearms, how much greater would the impact be if those people had access to rockets?

Besides, assuming that these armed citizens don't kill each other off before the need to stage a coup, the fact that they all have rocket launchers does not mean that they can fight off trained soldiers who are trying to stop you. Sure, you can take down those tanks and helicopters with a well-placed shot, but the soldiers on the ground are still far better armed and trained than you are, and have all kinds of support (artillery, air, etc.) that can tear you apart.

You're saying that maybe a couple hundred thousand trained soldiers could kill hundreds of millions of civilians with rocket launchers?

Oh, please. That's not even remotely realistic.

[Azrael Aluminous]

Depends who you are..

Also, Shrantic, can you prove that the founding fathers had intended to use the second amendment in order to topple an oppressive government? Do you have their words which specifically state that the purpose of arms is to defend from tyranny? Also, there is a unique difference between then and now. The weapons which you are calling for are potentially dangerous within a house and so it would not be very effective for protecting the family.

From my perspective weapons are for three things.

1. Defence (family and personal)
2. Hunting
3. Target practice smile

I would only consider weaponry which fits into two of the three categories to be of practical use to the general public. Since rocket launchers are not effective for hunting nor affective for self defence (the size of the rocket launcher and speed would prove to be a disadvantage for defence) than it is not useful. However Semi autos and others? I'd probably say so since they fall under defence (mostly of the family in many cases) and target practice.

Another interesting concept is that up until a government becomes tyrannical there is virtually no point in having rocket launchers. If anything the use of a rocket launcher is effective for terrorist activity if given access to the public constantly. In the case of an armed resistance most of these groups can grab Anti Tank weaponry, grenades, rocket launchers, etc from the black market. The black market will always be willing to supply people with equipment...for a cost.

Also, I highly doubt that ANY government will legalize the selling of rocket launchers since the practical use of these weapons is low (except for defending against a tyranny which can also be called terrorism) and the possibility of abuse for these weapons are extremely high as opposed to conventional fire arms (which are far more practical).

Also, if there ever was a revolution the public has millions of people on their side and numbers can win.

[Shrantic]

Azrael Aluminous

Depends who you are..

Also, Shrantic, can you prove that the founding fathers had intended to use the second amendment in order to topple an oppressive government? Do you have their words which specifically state that the purpose of arms is to defend from tyranny?

Yes. I do.

Quote:

Also, there is a unique difference between then and now. The weapons which you are calling for are potentially dangerous within a house and so it would not be very effective for protecting the family.

Wait, what? Because something is dangerous, it's bad at protecting? That's like saying because a knife is sharp, it's bad at cutting.

Quote:

From my perspective weapons are for three things.

1. Defence (family and personal)
2. Hunting
3. Target practice smile

I would only consider weaponry which fits into two of the three categories to be of practical use to the general public. Since rocket launchers are not effective for hunting nor affective for self defence (the size of the rocket launcher and speed would prove to be a disadvantage for defence) than it is not useful. However Semi autos and others? I'd probably say so since they fall under defence (mostly of the family in many cases) and target practice.

Rocket launchers fall under defense and target practice. Defending your rights as a citizen of America, and blowing up trees on your own private property.

Quote:

Another interesting concept is that up until a government becomes tyrannical there is virtually no point in having rocket launchers.

Yeah, and you don't need a fire extinguisher until there's a fire.

Quote:

If anything the use of a rocket launcher is effective for terrorist activity if given access to the public constantly. In the case of an armed resistance most of these groups can grab Anti Tank weaponry, grenades, rocket launchers, etc from the black market. The black market will always be willing to supply people with equipment...for a cost.

So if it's so easy, why should only criminals be allowed to carry these weapons? confused

Quote:

Also, I highly doubt that ANY government will legalize the selling of rocket launchers since the practical use of these weapons is low (except for defending against a tyranny which can also be called terrorism) and the possibility of abuse for these weapons are extremely high as opposed to conventional fire arms (which are far more practical).

I'm sure the good governments would. But most of us can agree that America has some seriously messed-up policies in their government.

Quote:

Also, if there ever was a revolution the public has millions of people on their side and numbers can win.

Not against tanks. Fire as many rounds from as many hunting rifles as you want into a tank, it's not going down.