"Please cite one instance of a ND with a RPG."
The Livelink video of a Syrian fighter throwing his buddy clear of the video frame with his backblast. That
probably counts as a ND
. To be fair, there aren't very many RPGs, legal or otherwise, in this country, so demanding evidence
here is a bit like demanding proof that lax gun laws
won't endanger Britons; can't be proven given the current circumstance. A "known-unknown"
. If RPGs are built anything like certain SKSs or Czech pistols, the concerns could be legitimate, completely independent of the people involved.
"Given the low frequency of RPG ownership by civilians in this country and the cost of entry, I'd imagine you aren't going to see the same amount if accidents, if any, as you would if they were easily available, affordable, and in common use."
...and made of fairy dust that litters the ground. What makes you think they would
ever be affordable or available? How big of a market could there possibly be, under
any circumstances? The Afghanis have them because they were dumped on them
for free. I'll bet they still cost more than most monthly wages at a whopping 15$ a pop --gotta keep things in perspective over there.
"Given the frequency of nd with firearms, and the umm....nature of rpg's"
Speaking of the 'nature of RPGs' ...how many folks do you think will carry them all day long in a waistband with no holster? How many pants will they slide down, and how many bathroom floors will they land on? How many will do
anything with them besides load up and immediately fire down range in a responsible manner, precisely
because it's a frickin' RPG?!
"are you saying that there is a current manufacturer in America that is making rpg's?"
Does Syria or Libya have a manufacturer? It thought RPG7's came exclusively form Russia these days
"Cannons are not man portable, rocket propelled, and do not contain a shaped charge of modern high explosives. Apples to oranges."
And the 2nd Amendment only applies to flintlocks. Get real (why would a specific limit on scale of 'arms' be so thoughtlessly omitted by guys who owned artillery pieces, themselves?)
"Oh yea....myth busters accidentally sent a cannonball through someone's house not too long ago. Cannons have accidents too."
And it's such a widespread problem we should ban the devices in addition to reckless behavior ordinances. FWIW, if Jamie or Adam had gone to the clink for a while after that incident --as
anyone else would have-- they might be inclined to be a bit more thorough in their myth-busting going forward. Shocking amount of recklessness on that show; and that's just what makes the cut. It's an "educational" version of
Jackass and everyone knows it.
"As for people's fears being irrational....here, maybe where there effectively are none. Go somewhere where they are in use."
We should ban all guns by the same logic. I am also sure that reckless behavior with an RPG is not looked kindly upon by even the half-wits in Afghan caves. You lose a hand for stealing; what do you think happens if you kill a confederate or scare the crap out of everyone by lighting off an RPG around the campfire?
"have to say this thread has made me look at this in a different way so there is value here - where some of us thought that FFL and registry is no big deal, I see now, what is the value add? Nothing. It would merely be appeasement and would do nothing to stop the random acts of violence."
And guess what --you'd be right!! Now you're getting it; in the 80 years the NFA registry was open, there was (IIRC) exactly
one murder committed with a legally possessed machine gun (cop with an issue weapon). A far greater number of illegal machine gun incidents committed over the years despite the most draconian of laws, enforcement protocols, and punishments. Now that the Registry has been closed for 30 years, merely opening it again will cause blood in the streets, though. Just like every other proposed restoration of our rights, it won't.
"but what I do argue against is the belief that the 2nd Amendment is somehow immune to such laws. It is not. It is not absolute. It was not intended to be. You can put restrictions on any amendment."
You actually can't just 'put restrictions on any amendment.' For reals. You actually have to demonstrate to The High Court how doing so resolves a conflict with other, equally important constitutional issues, in such a way this management effects as little governance apart from the issue at hand as possible. The
consistently broad proposals from the gun-control camp are fundamentally at odds with how rights issues are to be settled. So consistent one can only infer the goal is subversion of this freedom. The fact they consistently seek to impose these through ambush legislation in order to take advantage of our slow pace of governance (by the time SCOTUS strikes it down, the SAFE act will be a decade old) is further evidence of illicit intent.
TCB
