Should we be able to?

[Mosinowner]

Own anything the military has access to?

 

[donnie1581]

It depends, do you want our enemies to have easier access to the same stuff? I think a lot of the stuff they use we should be able to use also; but some things we don't want getting into the hands of Iran or N. Korea.

 

[Sylvain]

You mean ANYTHING from a 9mm M9 pistol to a full arsenal of nuclear warheads, jet fighters and tanks?
I voted NO.
I see enough idiots doing stupid things with guns, I cant imagine if anybody had access to all the military arsenal, including nuclear weapons.

 

[Mosinowner]

You mean ANYTHING from a 9mm M9 pistol to a full arsenal of nuclear warheads, jet fighters and tanks?
I voted NO.
I see enough idiots doing stupid things with guns, I cant imagine if anybody had access to all the military arsenal, including nuclear weapons.

You would have to pay money for the nukes let me give you a nice round figure for that. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[sgreen3]

Not really, I wouldnt really want some jack leg down the street having access to tactical nukes

 

[Constructionist]

I vote no, even though the aforementioned rogue nations already have all that stuff for the most part, albeit at a much more primitive level technologically (I hope). Seems that whether we're talking about nukes or M9s, the ones that don't need it already have it.

 

[Sylvain]

I vote no, even though the aforementioned rogue nations already have all that stuff for the most part, albeit at a much more primitive level technologically (I hope). Seems that whether we're talking about nukes or M9s, the ones that don't need it already have it.

That's true, well more like the ones that SHOULDN'T have it, already have it.

People already have illegal pistols and nuclear weapons.

But the real question is "Should the military have access to all those weapons?".

Like Clemenceau said, "War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military" http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Georges_Clemenceau/

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, when a machine gun cost civilians $10,000 and up, what on earth do you think nukes would cost? What does the military spend on an M4? $600? lets make it easy and say $1k, and it costs us $10k. A nuke costs a couple million a pop right? Any one got $30-40 million? <Aybe some whacko out there does but those kind of people won't blow up the world, they make too much money of it.

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

 

[Mosinowner]

Ok, when a machine gun cost civilians $10,000 and up, what on earth do you think nukes would cost? What does the military spend on an M4? $600? lets make it easy and say $1k, and it costs us $10k. A nuke costs a couple million a pop right? Any one got $30-40 million? <Aybe some whacko out there does but those kind of people won't blow up the world, they make too much money of it.

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

O MY GOSH ME TOO

 

[Sylvain]

Ok, when a machine gun cost civilians $10,000 and up, what on earth do you think nukes would cost? What does the military spend on an M4? $600? lets make it easy and say $1k, and it costs us $10k. A nuke costs a couple million a pop right? Any one got $30-40 million? <Aybe some whacko out there does but those kind of people won't blow up the world, they make too much money of it.

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

Im all for that.

But when we talk about nuclear weapons and all those stuff that's different.
Im glad that any idiot who could buy a handgun cannot get his hands on a nuclear weapon even if he could afford it.

Imagine some idiots playing around with his gun, he shoots himself in the leg by accidents.That's happend many times, you cant fix stupid.
Now imagine the same guy playing with the controls of a nuclear weapon, oops he turned the key by accident ... now the stupid guy blew off the whole city or state.

 

[ryknoll3]

Ok, when a machine gun cost civilians $10,000 and up, what on earth do you think nukes would cost? What does the military spend on an M4? $600? lets make it easy and say $1k, and it costs us $10k. A nuke costs a couple million a pop right? Any one got $30-40 million? <Aybe some whacko out there does but those kind of people won't blow up the world, they make too much money of it.

I voted YES! The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.




I'm personally saving up for an M1A1 Abrams...

Your cost logic is a little flawed.

The only reason machine guns cost civilians $10,000 is that there is a fixed supply because the closed registration. If registration were open for new machine guns, modern guns (like the M4) would only cost the buyer a few more bucks over the cost of the semi-auto.

Your logic only works if there's a fixed supply and relatively high demand...

Besides, can you imagine what the tax stamp would be for a tactical nuke. =)

 

[snowrs]

I am all for letting people own fire arms, but rocket launchers, nukes, etc... Those are fine the way they are.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Your cost logic is a little flawed.

The only reason machine guns cost civilians $10,000 is that there is a fixed supply because the closed registration. If registration were open for new machine guns, modern guns (like the M4) would only cost the buyer a few more bucks over the cost of the semi-auto.

Your logic only works if there's a fixed supply and relatively high demand...

Besides, can you imagine what the tax stamp would be for a tactical nuke. =)

Then why do shortbarrel shotguns and shortbarrel rifles and silencers and destructive devices cost so much? Albeit not 10x as much but you get my point, they would be significantly more than what the .gov pays for them. Which is a buttload.

 

[Kedric]

I am all in favor for small arms to be available to everyone, pending criminal or mental checks. Small arms being anything up to say 30mm. Single shot, semi, full auto, whatever as long as you were willing to pay the price for it (which would drop a lot once the asinine restrictions were lifted!).

Missiles, Rockets, Explosives, Nukes, Etc... no.

I think the question was ambiguously worded, but I still voted yes, with the above caveat.

 

[Caleb]

Outside of nukes and modern vehicles, I voted yes.

 

[Ragenarok007]

I watch the show Sons of Guns, so my answer would be no. While it may be desirable to have a full auto silenced grenade launcher I would prefer that they aren't generally available to the public. I can just see some idiot playing with a M203 and blowing the living room up. There are enough detractors from responsible gun ownership to not need this added negative publicity.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Considering our right to bear arms is a natural born right, and the 2nd amendment is a check on government - I voted yes.

People can legally buy full auto weapons, but it is very rare that a legally purchased fully auto weapon is used in a shooting... now compare the amount of pre-86' full auto weapons in the world to tanks and nukes....

Also, anyone that owns an Abrams is going to be watched rather closely....

 

[Bummer]

Yes.

"..the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Either it means what it says, or none of it means anything.

 

[45fan]

While it scares me to think that billy jo bob and his cousin lefty could possibly blow up the local gun range, and half the county along with it, if he were to win the lottery one day, criminals with enough determination and funding already have access to most of the things our military has. Why then would it make sense to restrict the law abiding majority?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I voted "YES". Folks with enough money to purchase WMD or major weapons systems will do with them what they will, no matter if they are ultimately "crazy" - they aren't stupid. Individual or crew served weapons or combat vehicles are costly enough (at the higher end) that most people wouldn't be able to afford them, or wouldn't think of getting them. I doubt you would see the guy down the street try to rob a 7/11 with a LAW or a M203; they're just too much weapon for "social purposes." After all, there are limited uses for even a small nuclear device - aside from criminal enterprises - and the attendant responsibility and penalties for misusing such weapons would deter most of us. Since the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the "people" to be as well armed as the government, being true to the intent of the Constitution would mean that any weapon should be legally available to anyone who can pay for it.