www.ditl.org

Hey! Don't blame all of society's problems with owning tanks because some guy decided to take a cruise on a highway several years back!

Tsukiyumi wrote:My only problem with the concept is that only the rich would be able to afford to own those things, and would lead to a collection of private armies with substantial firepower.

That's really your only problem with the idea? You don't have a problem with the fact that someone who may be your neighbor feels the need to own, say, a functioning recoilless rifle? I mean, whether or not he actually gets one, I'd say that the desire to own and use one is a problem in and of itself.

Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion. I don't go out firing off my handgun in the street; I use it at the range. if some guy wanted to buy a recoilless rifle for his collection, and use it at... some range somewhere that could support that weapon, I suspect he wouldn't just be firing it at stray neighborhood cats either. You do know there actually are plenty of collectors that own functional heavy weapons like miniguns and artillery pieces, right? With the right license, you can own a recoilless rifle. I don't seem to recall any of them going on shooting rampages, or accidentally discharging their 105mm howitzer, killing their neighbors. I guess I really just don't understand the objection, considering that there really are people who own military hardware, and not one of them that I'm aware of has ever used it in anger. Besides our government, that is.

I have no problem with collectors or collections. If I decided to collect mil-spec hardware, I could certainly envision wanting to own a recoilless rifle, or some similar HD gear. If it were for my collection, though... why would I need one that didn't have the sear deactivated (or whatever equivalent works - I'm not that familiar with the action mechanism of a recoilless rifle?) Handguns, rifles, and shotguns can all be used legitimately for hunting, plinking, hunting paper, and certainly home- and self-defense; in all of which I fully and heartily support the right of an individual to engage. None of those - nor any other activity of which I can think - apply to functioning mil-spec hardware greater than small arms.

I guess the fault of not understanding lies with me - because I sure as hell can't understand the idea that someone should own something which can't be used for those legitimate purposes, simply because he feels that he can own that something. That's not patriotism, it's prideful idiocy.

As a collector I can tell you that if something about it was nonfunctional it would bug the ever loving shit out of me.

Tyyr wrote:As a collector I can tell you that if something about it was nonfunctional it would bug the ever loving shit out of me.

And as a fellow parent, I can tell you that if my next-door neighbor had a functional weapon that had no practical use, as well as one which could without effort kill someone through three walls two houses away, it would more than bug the ever-loving shit out of me. It comes down to this: we are at a point with this topic at which we are considering issues beyond the simple rights or privileges which can or should be afforded to private citizens. Instead, we are at a point at which we must consider which rights must trump which other rights. Like I said, I am only talking about weapons with no practical value; while I currently have other things to do with a finite amount of money, and I'd like to endeavor to learn much more about being a responsible gun-owning parent first, I've considered the idea of owning a firearm myself. I even have an idea of what kind I'd like. However, to perhaps illustrate my point - let's say you, or Tsu, or whoever, lives next door to me. This neighbor owns a handgun, legitimately permitted and whatever. I have no issue with that. Now let's say, however, this person exhibits evidence of irresponsible a/o dangerous practices with his gun - plinking in the backyard, unsafe storage, or what have you. Now I have to say that his right to own that gun is completely and without question superseded by my right to have my family live without danger of being shot by this asshole.

If you take that and instead apply the idea that a functional mil-spec heavy-duty weapon such as we discussed has none of the practical value of a handgun, then I think my point becomes clearer.

Mikey wrote:Those citations were well-found, yet seem to all still be based in a pre-Constitution United States. Be that as it may, I still cannot believe anything but that the root idea was based in a culture whose soldiery of freedom was the citizen soldier, not in a culture based on fighting against that soldiery.

Of course they're based in a pre-constitution US - that's the society that wrote the damn thing. Nonetheless, they clearly show that giving the citizenry the ability to take on the US army and win was one consideration behind the amendment, as a counterbalance to the authority granted to Congress to maintain a standing army.

I agree with Mikey. It really comes down which and where do rights super cede the other rights.

Take for example, there is a guy who decorates his lawn tastefully with train stuff. His house is beautiful and it doesn't look like a junkyard. He is quiet. Now imagine instead of trains he collected WW2 military equipment including artillery. I think all but the soccer mom down the street wouldn't have a problem with it. Now if the same person looked like he stockpiling military equipment and has a history of let's say drunken disorderly behavior. Then I would be worried.

Problem is you dont know. The quiet guy could be the worse one and the loud drunken guy could be civil.

I am glad by home country doesnt have something like the second admentdment, it wouldnt work for us. But on the other hand it seems to work for America and it has for a few centuries. Each nation is different and I think its good they have their differences. I also think that it is a 200 year old document and should be allowed to be reinterperated every few decades. So individual states should be allowed to tweak it if they wish to fit the desires of the populace.

You know, I feel like it's been a while since we've had a TR-116 this drastic....

I really hate Pineapples...

Teaos wrote:I really hate Pineapples...

Try the Hawai'ian ones. They're much better than the Thai ones.

Do they taste good with ice cream?

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Do they taste good with ice cream?

IDK, but they taste good with rum.

Mikey wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Do they taste good with ice cream?

IDK, but they taste good with rum.

Hmm, doesn't help me too much, but thanks.