Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

You can own these weapons with the proper permits and tax stamps. The barrier to entry is the cost and availability and government scrutiny. No senseable person wants to own a missile.

I dont know why narrow minded people like you like to bring up scenarios of people fighting jets, tanks and drones.

1st, if there is an 'incident', it would be handled in this order:
Local law enforcement
Sate law enforcement
Federal law enforcement
National Guard.

Deploying US troops on domestic territory would be a HUGE deal. It wont happen over a local militia armed with a few semi-automatic weapons. If a local militia was extreme enough to attack the government, then they are extreme enough to commit domestic terrorism ... like McVeigh.

Secondly, those who are strong proponents of the 2nd amendment are .... well, the ones who are flying the drones, jets and driving those tanks. What makes you think a tyrannical dictator like Obama or Trump will ever be able to command the military to 'take over the US'? As long as the US is stable and maintains law and order, we will not see this happen.

Lastly, do you not think there could be a situation where society could fall into a full social disarray? Hollywood is full of hypothetical scenarios. Im sure you find them all completely nonsensical ... except the comrade Trump and his buddy Putin following behind him with his Russian Army.

 

The largest amount in service at one time was believed to be about 1500 guns in the Austrian Army. From what I've read, the gun had some problems and was expensive to manufacture. Also, it did not fit the times of fighting when they would just line up in front of each other and shoot with musket volleys. It was considered cowardly to fire from concealment or cover. Whether it was available to the public on a mass scale is irrelevant to the argument that these guns did in fact exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. You can change the argument all you want. I was just pointing out that saying guns could only shoot every 30 seconds back then is not accurate.

 

The biggest counter to this is that there were no prohibitions related to the ownership of weapons when the 2nd amendment was written nor were there any in the years after that. You could own a cannon if you could afford it, you could own a warship if you could afford it....which was just about the peak in military technology at the time. Hell you could even have a submarine if you got David Bushnell to build you one. Of course they were ridiculously dangerous and impractical, but you were allowed to own it.

No matter what guns existed at the time, it wouldn't have changed the 2nd amendment given that the idea behind it is unchanged.

 

No you can not own a missile as a citizen to put in your militia. That's a WMD and strictly illegal. Please stop posting

 

So essentially you are saying that the idea that the second amendment allowing the unfettered ownership of guns so as to allow the individual to defend against government tyranny isn't real? Wow... who'd thunk?

 

Dude, I made no mention about owning one for a militia.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...ff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.4&rgn=div5#se27.3.479_111

If the device falls under that category (which a missile does), it can be owned legally with the proper tax stamps and paperwork

If you state you are arming your militia, your paperwork will not be approved. If your background check reveals you are involved with extremist, your paperwork will not be approved.

There are probably a hundred different reasons why someone would not try to legally own a missile, including cost, Fed Gov scrutiny, local and state laws, original manufacture not willing to allow you to own their proprietary product, ect ...

You can own tanks. You can own fighter jets. Again, if you have the money and you can get the paperwork and you're willing to face government scrutiny, it can be had. You rarely find anyone owning this stuff because level headed people who can get the paperwork approved do not want to waste their money and have to constantly deal with the government. Its usually the extremist natured people who want this crap and the government will not allow them possession.

And no, biological and nuclear weapons do not fall under this category.

 

Can you give one instance where a citizen owns a missle legally?

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d73dda/the-great-scud-missile-auction

Money can get you a lot.

 

Given that we all know that existence of weapons causes homicide, I bet that guy has quite the body count.

 

My favorite part is that the collection over looks San Francisco Bay.Area. He had one of the largest collections of activated destructive devices over looking a liberal mecca. Their heads would probably explode if they all knew.

AND THE ROCKET'S RED GLARE, THE BOMB BURSTING IN AIR!!!

 

That was a museum no?

 

It was his private collection. He died and his family donated some of it to be turned into a museum. His dad built the Hoover Dam. He had gov't contacts and got all the permits, licenses, etc for the weapons.

 

So the super rich and powerful can get an old scud missile for their museum. Ok, but could someone buy a missile and missile launcher to defend their home against Tyranny? I don't think so.

 

You can get it but it will take money. Is it easy to get? NO. Will you have it in 2 weeks? NO

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.

You then need additional permits for the explosives.

 

That sounds like you can get it in "theory" but in reality you can't. If the Attorney General has to approve it, you aren't going to be able to put a missile launcher in your backyard no matter how much you have unless it's non-functioning

 

That's how it was written but the ATF signs off now not the AG and it is actually the same process as getting a suppressor or Short Barrel Rifle at least for the launcher. The missile/rocket is where it gets complicated. You have to get local, state, and federal licenses to store explosives and have proper storage facilities. Then each missile or rocket is considered a destructive device and has to go through the same atf sign off transfer as the launcher. Finding ammo (missile/rocket) for sale is not easy. Then if you do use it for fun or whatever you have to report it to the ATF that you blew it up.

 

People expect teachers to take a bullet for their kids. I seen where they want teachers armed.....lol.. they won't allow the teachers to deduct supplies they buy but want money to get them glocks.

and people think teachers are over paid......

smh....

why do we not ask as much from politicians?? They get paid so much more

Rocket River

 

You are a cold b*stard, aren't you. With all due respect. Your attitude towards this and other mass shootings in this country illustrates exactly what's wrong with the issue of guns. There are a minority of rabid pro-gun NRA supporters busy paying the leaders of the NRA large salaries and helping to support or threaten members of Congress by supplying the NRA with the funds to do what they do. What's that? The NRA works to insure that nothing is done about the danger inherent in firearms, especially firearms that serve no purpose other that killing people. You don't need an assault weapon to kill or wound an intruder. My Ithaca pump or my Colt revolver would take care of that problem, at least in my home. I don't need semi-automatic assault weapons with large magazines to defend my family. Neither do you. Those weapons and large capacity magazines should be difficult to buy, and sold only to collectors who have gone to a hell of a lot of trouble to get them, not simply waltzing into Academy to load up. In my humble opinion.

Wake up, open your eyes, StupidMoniker.

I'll add this. I very much resent Crash's assumption in his OP that this is a liberal versus conservative issue. Bullshit. Most of the liberals I know, and I know a lot, are gun owners, and several enjoy hunting and going to gun ranges. As for what to do about these tragedies, I'm open to ideas.

 

No. I am actually a very warm person. I just don't think we should make policy decisions based on emotional reactions to tragic events. It is the less spectacular and more mundane dangers that cause far more harm.

It does, but not in the way you mean. My attitude illustrates that people hold positions based on emotions where guns are concerned, which is what is wrong on the issue of guns. Cheap, POS handguns in the hands of criminals are the real danger. Mass shootings are an aberration. We should no more make gun policy based around "assault weapons" than we should make highway safety policy based around supercars. They are just statistically insignificant.

I don't care about the NRA. I am not a member. I appreciate their opposition to the erosion of the 2nd Amendment, but in terms of any specific issue, I don't know or care what their stance is.

So called assault weapons (really semi-automatic carbines or rifles) account for a small fraction of the gun homicides in this country. Why on earth would you make them the focus of legislation. Handguns kill far more people in the hands of criminals. According to the FBI, about 4% of gun homicides are committed with rifles, 5% with shotguns, 75% with handguns, and the remainder (about 16%) are unspecified (most likely meaning they couldn't tell or didn't report what kind of weapon was used). If handguns account for 19 times as many homicides as all rifles, why would the priority be to outlaw or restrict a specific subset of those rifles?

My eyes are open. That is why I am discussing actual numbers and statistics. It is you that is relying on emotions and feelings. Emotions make for bad policy. I won't support limiting the freedom of millions of Americans because a handful of students die from shootings each year.

I agree that it isn't a liberal/conservative issue (though I would venture a guess that a higher percentage of liberals than conservatives agree with you, and a higher percentage of conservatives than liberals agree with me). It is more of an emotion vs. logic issue.

 

Curious how many children need to die in school shootings before they no longer are categorized as collateral damage or acceptable losses in the defense of gun owners ability to own assault weapons/military-style weapons or whatever other term you choose to use? At what point are these tragedies no longer considered "emotional reactions" and instead "logical reactions" that should lead to policy decisions?

Those answers might help the parents, friends, and Parkland community become more "logical"...