Hypocrisy; Guns; Warbirds (Private ownership of military aircraft)


PDA






CmdrSlander
March 24, 2013, 04:31 PM
The next time you are arguing with someone about the AR15 and its ilk being military weapons - only designed to kill etc - that nobody needs and so on... ask them about private ownership of fighter planes and bombers.

Really, think about it, people in the US own military aircraft such as the P51 Mustang that were literally designed only to kill and sold only to the military. Most anti-gunners think airshows/warbirds etc. are cool, or have no opinion at all, but its very similar to private ownership of rifles like the AKM and AR15. Much like warbirds, those firearms were designed for the military and were used by the military but Civilians now own them and cause little harm.

AR15s are to 3-Gun Competition as the P51 Mustang is to air racing.

AKMs are to hog hunting as PBY Catalinas are to waterbombing.

and on the negative end:

AR15s are to Sandy Hook as the P51 Mustang is to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash.

and so on.

Basically my point is that military weapons of all kinds end up in civilian hands and if they have a problem with the NRA they should also be protesting the Commemorative Air Force. The "its a military weapon" argument is utter crap. Military gear is cool, from planes to guns civilians will get their hands on it, and collecting it is a perfectly safe and sane hobby.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hypocrisy; Guns; Warbirds (Private ownership of military aircraft)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HorseSoldier
March 24, 2013, 05:14 PM
Apples and oranges, I think. Warbirds in civilian hands get de-mil'ed and have never been used in the commission of a crime, so far as I know. The same goes for the privately held armored vehicles out there. I think the argument is too easily deconstructable to have much impact.

JRH6856
March 24, 2013, 05:22 PM
^^^This.

It's not the planes, its the armament, and without the armament, a P51 is just a racing plane.

sixgunner455
March 24, 2013, 05:32 PM
I'm not attacking someone else's very expensive and unusual hobby in order to justify defending my civil rights.

The military history of those planes is very real, but has little or nothing to do with my right to own personal arms and use them to defend myself and my community, unless you are going to argue that privately held PB4Y or P51 or B17 should get their .50 guns back.

Hacker15E
March 24, 2013, 05:38 PM
It is a terrible analogy -- there are government forces (the FAA included) that are trying to make it so that warbirds cannot be privately owned or flown, either. The post-9/11 paranoia about airplanes has made it even worse.

Mustangs and Corsairs are more threatened than personally owned firearms are.

47CubPilot
March 24, 2013, 05:39 PM
The Federal government periodically tries to make warbirds illegal.

Pilot
March 24, 2013, 05:42 PM
Horsesoldier nailed it. The planes are all de-milled, yet as the gentleman above said the Feds on occasion try to make private ownership of former military planes illegal. The former warbirds that people possess are no more dangerous than a Cessna 172 except they hold more fuel.

JRH6856
March 24, 2013, 05:56 PM
Put a passenger with an AR-15 in a Cessna 172 and it is more dangerous than a de-milled P51.

GlowinPontiac
March 24, 2013, 05:58 PM
The Mustang involved in the fatal air race crash was also heavily modified from its stock form. putting it side by side with an original Mustang and you would think they were 2 different models.

Nickel Plated
March 24, 2013, 06:02 PM
AR15s are to Sandy Hook as the P51 Mustang is to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash.

On top of the responses here. The Reno crash was an accident whereas Sandy Hook was a deliberate killing.
Until you can find a case where someone armed their old warbird and did a couple of strafing passes down Main St. I don't think your comparison will be very valid.

Justin
March 24, 2013, 06:29 PM
The problem with this argument is that it's one that's far too esoteric.

Most people have little to no experience with vintage war planes outside of maybe seeing one at an air show or museum. This is going to put you at a disadvantage right off the bat, as you'll be stuck having to explain the fact that it is completely legal to own a war plane.

I've found that it's possible to have better luck if you draw a comparison between guns/magazines/etc. and common items. For instance, telling people that trying to ban >10 round magazines would be about as effective as trying to ban coffee mugs or iPods.

beatledog7
March 24, 2013, 06:44 PM
The problem with comparing or analogizing other things we can do/own with firearms is that the antis always find a way to think that maybe we should further restrict that other thing as well.

Justin
March 24, 2013, 06:46 PM
In my experience, they'd rather try to frame an argument as to why guns are different than other objects.

It's kind of hilarious when you start pointing out that alcohol kills more people than guns, and there's really nothing socially redeeming about it.

blkbrd666
March 24, 2013, 07:26 PM
Warbirds in civilian hands get de-mil'ed and have never been used in the commission of a crime

AR15s are "de-milled" M16s, and if you were to give a P51 Mustang to one of the dropouts around here that don't know how to wear a pair of pants, it will get used in a crime before the weekend is up. If nothing else, they'll fly it under the influence of a "big fat blunt".

It would even be a crime to put chrome 22" wheels on a P51 in my book, but they would do that too.

mister_murphy
March 24, 2013, 07:33 PM
I feel that the comparing firearms and warbirds isnt the correct discussion.

First, most people arent aware of the particulars in reference to aviation itself, much less when you get in to experimental exhibition catagory aircraft, when there really isnt that much to compare it to when it comes to firearms. When you also throw in the operating restrictions due to catagory, and pre/post-moratorium. Going even further, look at the F14's out at Chino, where even the parts are illegal due to the issues with Iran still operating F14's... I think most of the public would be lost in a fog on the comparison. Same as if someone compared closing a range to what happened at meigs field, and the midnight dozers...

oneounceload
March 24, 2013, 07:35 PM
Seriously?

I mean, SERIOUSLY?

WOW...........

HorseSoldier
March 24, 2013, 07:38 PM
AR15s are "de-milled" M16s, and if you were to give a P51 Mustang to one of the dropouts around here that don't know how to wear a pair of pants, it will get used in a crime before the weekend is up.

If you point an AR-15 and a de-mil'ed P51 at someone and pull the trigger you'll get two very different results.

As for the notion that people whom I assume are of the wrong ethnic category would happily use P51 Mustangs to commit crimes, the question then is why hasn't that happened? Not recently, and not, say, fifty years ago when there were tons sitting around in boneyards and such. Up here in Alaska privately owned airplanes and small commercial carriers are ubiquitous and their involvement in any sort of crime (even theft of the airplane itself) is extremely rare. The relative comparison to use of firearms, or use of automobiles, in crimes to privately held airplanes puts the latter into the realm of hit by lightning sort of numbers (despite no filters at all on what ethnicities we let live up here . . .).

AlexanderA
March 24, 2013, 07:59 PM
You could put the original armament on a P-51 Mustang or a B-17, if you had the proper tax stamps and were in a state that allowed it. The problem is economic: a B-17 could have a dozen or more .50 cals., and at $40-50,000 a pop, it adds up. Even if you could afford $600,000 for the (live) armament, you'd probably leave it on the ground rather than risk it in a possible air accident.

mister_murphy
March 24, 2013, 08:00 PM
Thinking on it a bit more...The only issue I could see that would be comparable would be that the govenment in recent history has wanted to restrict firearm ownership and GA in various ways.

CJW
March 24, 2013, 08:11 PM
IMHO, the whole point of the 2A is to keep an equality of force between civilians and the federal military, so civilians can prevent armed tyranny by the government. The 2A fundamentally protects the rights of citizens to own any and all types of weapons, period. Including artillery, fighter planes, machine guns, etc. The Dept. of Homeland Security just purchased 2,700 armored vehicles and 1.6 billion rounds of ammo. Civilians have every right under the 2A to match or exceed that level of armament.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 24, 2013, 09:20 PM
I prefer the argument that I refer to in my signature.

razorback2003
March 25, 2013, 12:15 AM
Nothing wrong with any plane if you can afford it. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Mike OTDP
March 25, 2013, 12:32 AM
It might be worth remembering that warbird owners are often gun owners. Just with a whole lot more money. A P-51 in good shape will run ~$2 million or so.

Not that I'd want one. I got a flight in a P-51 once, it handles like a pig. A most educational flight.

Ignition Override
March 25, 2013, 02:01 AM
GlowinPontiac nailed it.
The primary cause of that nightmarish P-51 crash into the Reno crowd was because it had been so heavily modified.
As with so many of those exper. aircraft (Bearcats etc), gradually shorter wings, possibly modified elevators/rudders with much higher engine manifold pressure (HP) than in the original Allison or Merlin engines often lead to unpredictable changes in instability/control sensitivities in any or all control axes following new modifications.

The doomed pilot in the P-51 crash at Reno experienced such an unexpected abrupt pitch-up and stall etc that he reportedly experienced 6 Gs or so and blacked out, having no g-suit. Even with a g-suit, the plane lost all of its airspeed at a very low altitude with an unconscious pilot.

paramedic70002
March 25, 2013, 01:50 PM
http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

Here's a guy that owns and shoots a functional cannon. I have seen a couple tanks and several military issue breech loading cannons fired by civilians.

Shadow 7D
March 25, 2013, 02:16 PM
Know a guy who was involved in the process to purchase some surplus migs (no seriously, back in the day, guy flew over with a few good friends who could fly a mig, cash in hand, flew back to AK with Migs) and the local ATF agents watched as the cannons were torch cut

A Mig might not be newest up today, however it can still do the boogie woogie.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hypocrisy; Guns; Warbirds (Private ownership of military aircraft)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!