Why do we need destructive devices?


PDA

Lord Soth
May 6, 2003, 10:53 PM
Since we did a thread like this concerning machine guns why not do it for destructive devices? Please note that I am totally pro gun in writing this post. Why do we really need grenade launchers, bazookas, etc.? Is it the same reason we need machine guns? I just want to hear some opinions. Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do we need destructive devices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
techmike
May 6, 2003, 11:06 PM
I suppose I take a rather simplistic view of this issue, but I believe that my life is every bit as important as any LEO or military person's, therefore I should not be prohibited from having any hardware that they are allowed to have for thier protection.

AZTOY
May 6, 2003, 11:15 PM
I don't need a grenade launchers or bazooka. :rolleyes:

But i should have the right to buy one if i want too.:neener:

Zundfolge
May 6, 2003, 11:18 PM
Most of us here (myself included) where born after the NFA passed ... so most of us don't remember a time when you could order a thompson submachine gun out of the Sears catalog.

In looking back at the NFA I've come to the conclusion that it is exactly the same worthless bovine scat as the Assautl Weapon Ban.

It is a ban on weapons for pretty much superficial reasons, and was engineered as a step toward total bans.


That said, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "rifles, shotguns and pistols" it says "arms".

As for a need for distructive devices, I'm sure some rural people could come up with some sort of need (I imagine explosives might be useful for moving earth or maybe fishing ;) ).

But Rights are not based on need (okay, I'll stop beating that dead horse)


I'd say people need destructive devices about as much as I need my Porsche (try to take my Porsche and you may get to watch me exercise my 2nd amendment right :p ).

Ian
May 6, 2003, 11:24 PM
Model rockets are cool...as my aeronautics design professor put it, what could beat a 300 mph toy? Well, I know what could: a 300 mph toy with an explosive warhead flying horizontally! I would love to play around (in a safe manner, of course) with a bazooka.

A 20mm Lahti would be really sweet too.

MeekandMild
May 6, 2003, 11:53 PM
Political stability in an egalitarian society depends upon co-equal access to weapons of warfare among the citizenry. Any society where the common (and effective) weapons of warfare are accessible only to members of limited classes tends to degenerate to an hierarchal, centrally planned nation-state. In the latter there develop strongly delineated classes of workers, soldiers and drones. There evolve systems of specialized professional soldiers who become overlords for the lesser-armed masses.

Evidence includes:

1) Development of iron weaponrey in ancient Canaan and the rise of the Philistine power structure.

2) Development of the Hoplite phalanx and the Spartan enslavement of indigenous tribes.

3) Development of coordinated phalanxes supported by peripheral javalin men, archers and cavalry and the Macedonian conquest.

4) Development of steel edged weapons in a closed society and the rise of the Japanese Shogunate.

5) Development of the rifled cannon mounted on wheeled carriages supported by massed musketry and the Napoleonic states.

6) Development of modern trenchwork and the suppression of the US Confederacy.

7) Development of Armored cavalry and close air support and the Nazi conquest of Europe.

8) Development of modern methods of disinformation and mind control and Post-Empire England.

Et Cetera.

So the need for some dusty old guy somewhere to create his own private museaum of functional WWII tanks is actually justified by your own need to have your own name, a private place to live, the right to marry whom you choose, maybe read a book of history or poetry and some personal freedom of self determination.

Frohickey
May 6, 2003, 11:56 PM
one word... fishing :D :D :D

MeekandMild
May 7, 2003, 12:05 AM
Two links which may illustrate the basis for my assertions:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ampp.html
http://www.draftymanor.com/bart/h_quigl5.htm

hubel458
May 7, 2003, 12:17 AM
That's good reason for starters.Second helps to recycle things, that cost taxed types big bucks. Like get all the use out of them.
Freedom is about collecting and owning what you damn please.
A row of tanks in a collectors yard is no different than cars,
tractors, stamps, rocks, or whatever.And the defense of our liberties depends on us having the same stuff that
demagogs might want our military to use on us.Ed.

HBK
May 7, 2003, 12:31 AM
Um...to blow stuff up.

MicroBalrog
May 7, 2003, 02:01 AM
Actually, the Swiss had what they call a 'home-defense grenade launcher' - 20mm, alternates between HE, AP, and buckshot loads.:evil:
10 round, semi-auto.
I need one. Now.:D

MicroBalrog
May 7, 2003, 02:02 AM
Imagine a 40mm full-auto launcher vs. LA rioters or a bunch of angry Jew-Baiters.:D

Justin
May 7, 2003, 02:09 AM
What I want to know is why a SPAS 12 is considered a DD whereas a Remington 1100, or even a Benelli M3 are not.

'splain, please.

Feanaro
May 7, 2003, 02:13 AM
To me the Second was put into place to stop tyranny, from without or within. If you look at the Vietnam War, Afganistan under Russian occupation and such you will see that people who were determined to win because this was all or nothing for them could beat better trained armies. They did so by not coming out and fighting. They used whatever they had or could grab. It is easier however to fight with weapons you have already.

Anti-tank weapons in civilian hands allow us to much more easily discourage foreign and domestic armor. I am leery of giving many people a butter knife, let alone an RPG. But if we let fear rule our counsels then we shall soon outlaw breathing. If we allow the government to keep anti-armor weapons out of our hands then we are giving them an ace, a trump card.

0007
May 7, 2003, 04:12 AM
because you never know when you might have to fight a "Duel"(the movie). I know I still kick myself for not buying a Lahti for $89.95 and a Solothurn for $189.95 from Ye Old Hunter's Lodge back in '62...

MicroBalrog
May 7, 2003, 04:24 AM
Question: What about the use of landmines?

Pendragon
May 7, 2003, 05:17 AM
I am not sure a landmine would be considered an "arm" - or at least not one that you can bear.

There is a whole nother discussion about:

1. items like mines which are automatic and do not discriminate - it is like a gun pointed in one place with a trip wire. Perhaps you could make a case for a mine that is intentionally detonated. That is just a burried gun...

2. items like nukes which some theorize you should not be able to own because simply posessing one is unsafe enough to constitute the equivalent of a gun pointed at them.

Jim March
May 7, 2003, 05:17 AM
Uh, 'cuz I might one day need to destroy something?

Put it another way: piracy isn't dead. In fact, in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, it's thriving :eek:. If you're cruising around on a sailboat, an RPG might be your best friend one day.

ALL weapons are about the individual's ability to fend off multiple assailants. When the gov't doesn't want you to be able to do that, it's worth asking "why not?".

Caution: you may not like the answer. :scrutiny:

Oleg Volk
May 7, 2003, 06:40 AM
Shaped charges would have been very handy yesterday, to clear a tree blocking the road after a storm. Half-dozen small charges to cut it to pieces would have been just the tool.

In the bigger picture, parity with law enforcement is important. Had Waco resulted in Grozny-like results, domestic trespassers would have been deterred a little from resorting to needless force.

MicroBalrog
May 7, 2003, 06:49 AM
E.G., you would like the Branch Davidians to use elementary schools and hospitals as living shields to rain RPG's on the approaching feds?
Grozny would not have been possibles if the Chechenyan rebels weren't ready to use children and other civilians as shields - and in the first weeks or even months of Grozny, the Russians were yet unwilling to commit the atrocities the commited later. :D

But the question is different: What would make an ordinary person to pay for a weapon he was unlikely to ever use against a government and which was expensive to shoot?

Battler
May 7, 2003, 08:04 AM
Look at the shotguns recently added to "destructive devices".

shotguns would CLEARLY be defined "destructive devices", except for the number of people who use them.

Why do you NEED a shotgun? :)

Pinned&Recessed
May 7, 2003, 08:27 AM
Since all firearms with a bore larger than .50 are considered DDs, (except for some shotguns, note the SPAS12 above), I want one merely because they are big bore rifles.

If I ever wanted a .600 Nitro Express double for hunting in Africa? Nope, DD according to the .gov. DANGEROUS for me to own. Never mind the guns cost upwards of $50,000 to start and ammo is about $40+ each unless you handload.

Sure I could just pay the tax and be done, but why paper-up a fine old English gun? I'll bet under some rules, you can't leave the country with an NFA item, at least you can't bring it back. so it's pointless.

Don't even bring up the $89.00 Lahtis and $189.00 Solothurns. I would give parts of my anatomy to be able to go back in time and get those deals. I would buy two each and a least a couple dozen pallets of ammo.

Pre-'68, you had big bores
Pre-'86 you had $450.00 Form 1 M16s.

I hate being young. Missed the gun nut heydays.:fire:

Soap
May 7, 2003, 08:50 AM
Ideally in America, need shouldn't factor into any buying and selling of goods. If the buying and selling of goods do not harm others, it should be okay. For example, I remember when I was younger my dad was trying to remove this stump...it wasn't budging. We tried using a farm tractor, digging it out, basically any thing you could think of. If we had some dynamite we could have got rid of that dang stump in about 10 minutes. Eventually we just chainsawed it as close to the ground as possible and then burned what was left.

braindead0
May 7, 2003, 09:33 AM
Need vs. Freedom... With the NFA we allowed the government to legislate our freedom to own these weapons, it's no differerent than banning chocolate bars (you don't need them to survive and they can be bad for you).

It set a precendent, the slippery slope towards socialism as far as I'm concerned.

Pardon the re-work of a famous quote from Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the DD's,
but I didn't want a DD, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Assault Rifles,
but I didn't have an Assault Rifle, so I did nothing.

Then they came for the smokers,
but I didn't smoke, so I did nothing.

Then they came for the fast food eaters,
but I didn't like McD's, so I did nothing.

Then they came for unlimited wiretapping and email reading,
but I didn't have anything important to say anyway.

And when they came for the Chocolate bars, there was no one left to stand up.:banghead:

buzz_knox
May 7, 2003, 10:24 AM
Because the 2nd Amendment is about insuring that a gov't won't turn repressive or won't last long if it does. Given that, the ability to wage effective war against a military is necessary. Rifles versus tanks doesn't work unless you know what you're doing and/or get lucky. LAWs versus tanks does.

The counterargument is that criminals will be much more dangerous with such weapons. Big deal. You let me have my MP-5 and I'll take care of the moron getting ready to "bloop" a school bus.

10 points to the first one who gets the bloop reference.

cordex
May 7, 2003, 10:33 AM
Because half an inch is a silly arbitrary limit for bore size.
Because I like safely playing with things that go boom. Big boom is even better.
Because I don't care whether something has a "sporting purpose" or not.
Because your daddy's shotgun isn't far from being called a destructive device.
Because fireworks are neat but detcord is neater.

Because need doesn't figure into it.

MicroBalrog
May 7, 2003, 10:35 AM
However, here's a point to consider: yes, most existing brands of DD aren't fit for civilian use - but if they were legal, then consumer demand would quickly create those that were.

Pinned&Recessed
May 7, 2003, 11:06 AM
10 points to the first one who gets the bloop reference.

Are you perhaps referring to the M-79 Grenade Launcher?

I've also heard it called a "Pa-Toonk"er

Could be a M203 as well.

JeFF D
May 7, 2003, 01:27 PM
-Pinned&recessed

"If I ever wanted a .600 Nitro Express double for hunting in Africa? Nope, DD according to the .gov. DANGEROUS for me to own."

Not true. Some calibers over .50 are an exception to the rule because they are said to have a "sporting purpose" and .600NE is one of them.

Pinned&Recessed
May 7, 2003, 02:58 PM
Not true. Some calibers over .50 are an exception to the rule because they are said to have a "sporting purpose" and .600NE is one of them.

Do you know where I could find a list of them? Would it be on the ATF website?

Henry Bowman
May 7, 2003, 03:08 PM
The police (law enforcement) and government need them because ______________.

I need them because ______________.

Whatever you put in the first blank, you can put in the second.

JShirley
May 7, 2003, 04:23 PM
Prague, 1968.
Waco, 1993.

goon
May 7, 2003, 07:23 PM
Well, DD's are like guns.
You don't really need them most of the time, but when you need them, you NEED THEM.
So to answer your question, I don't need them, yet.

Dave Markowitz
May 7, 2003, 09:39 PM
See Warsaw, 1943.

rdcinmn
May 7, 2003, 11:34 PM
Maybe you should have titled this post why do you and/or I need- a computer, a car, a gun, :cuss: wake up it's called a free country!
:neener:

Traveler
May 8, 2003, 07:29 AM
To me it's not a question of need, but want. The problem is always the fact that when want turns to need it's too late.

Personally I find myself wanting an armored vehicle complete with weaponry. I've spent a large portion of my life fixing that kind of stuff, and wouldn't mind doing it for a hobby.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do we need destructive devices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!