Should we be able to?

[Prometheus]

Yes, with a few minor caveats.

No on weapons of mass destruction. I mean actual WMD's, as in NBC's.

When it comes to high yield explosives and similar items, they would need to be properly stored or kept in a location where it wouldn't impact others on neighboring properties.

I.e. if you live in condo, you don't get to store a bunch of C4 there. If you live on 100 acres, you store it well inside your property line type of deal.

 

[K_W]

No because the question was "anything". No civilian has any useful reason to have nuclear weapons, ICBMs, or high yield explosives. Most governments don't either.

Like someone said earler we have enough idiots causing trouble with guns, imagine if any idiot could walk into a place like Gander Mountain and buy C4 instead as easily as Tannerite and black power.

If my neighbor wants a fully automatic, supressed M-16 with bayonet lug, collapable stock, and 100 round drum mag, he should be able to buy one, if he can afford it (and provided he's not secretly bat-s**t crazy). But, a Russian built ICBM with multi-megaton thermonuclear warhead... Hell no!

 

[Sylvain]

No because the question was "anything". No private citizen has any business posessing nuclear weapons, missiles, or high yield explosives. Most government don't either.

Agree.

Im not sure how I would use a missile for self defense.

Plus when the OP says "anything" that also includes top secret things that even most of the military dont know about.

 

[turnandshoot4]

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.

They do not cost so much. You can own a suppressor for $375 or so WITH the tax stamp. SBR uppers are cheap, nearly as cheap as regular legnth uppers.

I voted yes. I don't know the difference between a "tactical" nuke and a nuke but I am sure the "tactical" is so much worse.

It all is a price to play. If I have millions in gold reserves sitting in my house and can afford an abrams tank to defend it, then why not?

This comes back to a fundamental question.

Why do we have the second amendment?

It is a right to revolution. Not to duck hunt.

 

[BDBHoover]

I would vote yes but with stipulations (i.e. nukes, missiles, really any kind of rocket propelled exploding device)

I do believe that the civilians that pass the LTCH application process should be able to purchase class 3 items without the additional paperwork and at inflated prices..... I would like to be able to purchase class 3 items at the same price the military gets them for and no restrictions on the age of a machine gun.....

 

[newtothis]

Im gonna have to stick with the "no" argument. I dont think civilians should have access to high explosives just for the sake of having them (I was childhood friends with a kid whose dad owned a construction/destruction company, and got to see what some of that stuff can do first hand).

As far as tactical nukes and weapons with such a high capability to wreak havoc, Im gonna have to go with a big negatory.

Nobody, not including infantry marines and front lines soldiers, really needs an AA12 or an M203.

 

[Sylvain]

They do not cost so much. You can own a suppressor for $375 or so WITH the tax stamp. SBR uppers are cheap, nearly as cheap as regular legnth uppers.

I voted yes. I don't know the difference between a "tactical" nuke and a nuke but I am sure the "tactical" is so much worse.

It all is a price to play. If I have millions in gold reserves sitting in my house and can afford an abrams tank to defend it, then why not?

This comes back to a fundamental question.

Why do we have the second amendment?

It is a right to revolution. Not to duck hunt.

Tactical nukes are just regular nukes duracoated in tactical black.

I think you can own tanks, I have seen some guys that collect WW2 and Vietnam war tanks (I just dont think the guns still work).
I mean even in the UK you are allowed to own and drive a tank on the road so I would think it's tottaly legal in the US too.

 

[newtothis]

Tactical nukes are just regular nukes duracoated in tactical black.

You mean its tacti-cool!

 

[turnandshoot4]

The free market will sort these issues out though.

An apache helicopter can do MASSIVE damage. But it also has a MASSIVE cost. The rich would be able to own them, not your average street thug.

Same thing for everyone's "tactical" nukes. Why answer no when the very people you are afraid of owning them can barely afford a mosin, raven, or lorcin?

 

[stormryder]

If you can afford it, buy whatever you like.

 

[Sylvain]

You mean its tacti-cool!

That's Über tacticool!

Of course as soon as everybody can legally own and carry nukes we will see nukes-free zones.

Anti 2A people wont let us carry nukes at the local mall.

 

[Sylvain]

The free market will sort these issues out though.

An apache helicopter can do MASSIVE damage. But it also has a MASSIVE cost. The rich would be able to own them, not your average street thug.

Same thing for everyone's "tactical" nukes. Why answer no when the very people you are afraid of owning them can barely afford a mosin, raven, or lorcin?

Im also affraid of stupid people that have lots of money.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Im also affraid of stupid people that have lots of money.

And what is stoping them from using currently legal but expensive destructive means against you?

Nothing.

 

[the1kidd03]

while I think depending on the weapon, there should be heavy regulation/taxation/tracking in order to get ahold of certain things in order to keep them from getting to the wrong people......I completely agree with the Constitution...and the 2nd amendments' original purpose (at least partially) was also to ensure that the PEOPLE had the means to protect their freedom not only from outsiders but from a government which gradually starts overstepping the boundaries of what a government is supposed to do and becomes too controlling (as in England).....hence, when the government is in charge of the military it has a means to maintain control of the citizens and for the people to have the ability to remove the government and replace it they must have the ability to access weapons which would put them on an "equal playing field" with the government loyalist military........of course, whether or not anyone/everyone in uniform would actually follow orders to engage American citizens is an entirely different debate/topic

 

[Mosinguy]

Anything? NO.

Small arms, NON-EXPLODING projectiles (howitzers, cannons, etc.), planes and other vehicles? YES.

Of all the weapons we should have, there are only a few I truly believe we don't need like explosives and nuclear weapons. Everything else you are good to go!

 

[turnandshoot4]

Why, why, why is everyone harping on these nuclear weapons?

What is the basis that anyone COULD own a nuclear weapon? How much does it cost? How much does it weigh?

 

[G_Stines]

I didn't vote. If there was an explain option, I would have picked that one.
Small arms, Long arms, ect. Sure. Full auto and select fire? You bet, but regulated. WAY to many idiots out there. That comes at the cost of bureaucracy, but it may be the necessary lesser of two evils. Tanks? No. Choppers? No. Military grade explosives? I'm actually gonna go with no. Kinda on the fence, but no one outside of a combat zone really needs access to claymores, C4, or frag grenades.

In regards to the "larger" items, if someone can buy them, someone has to sell them. Even if that someone is Uncle Sam himself, that means that civilians will have access to the military compounds and such that have the equipment available. It would only be a matter of time before the BGs find a way to get their hands on it. Whether it be acquiring enough people and full autos, and body armor to take on a small base or place of sale. Marvin Heemeyer managed to plow through that town in Colorado in '04 after spending a year and a half modifying a bulldozer with armor plating... Imagine if he had a 105mm on top of that and it was instead piloted by someone who was intent on killing people.

Yeah sure, citizens could rise up to defend their town, but most aren't going to have the resources. The larger items for sale, would only benefit the elitists in my opinion.

 

[K_W]

It would only be a matter of time before the BGs find a way to get their hands on it.

Exactly... Anything you can possess, can be stolen.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Sure. And if you open carry it can be taken away from you.

Why take away liberty? Because something CAN happen?

Your firearms could be stolen tonight. We need to regulate it because of that.

 

[Sylvain]

I didn't vote. If there was an explain option, I would have picked that one.
Small arms, Long arms, ect. Sure. Full auto and select fire? You bet, but regulated. WAY to many idiots out there. That comes at the cost of bureaucracy, but it may be the necessary lesser of two evils. Tanks? No. Choppers? No. Military grade explosives? I'm actually gonna go with no. Kinda on the fence, but no one outside of a combat zone really needs access to claymores, C4, or frag grenades.

In regards to the "larger" items, if someone can buy them, someone has to sell them. Even if that someone is Uncle Sam himself, that means that civilians will have access to the military compounds and such that have the equipment available. It would only be a matter of time before the BGs find a way to get their hands on it. Whether it be acquiring enough people and full autos, and body armor to take on a small base or place of sale. Marvin Heemeyer managed to plow through that town in Colorado in '04 after spending a year and a half modifying a bulldozer with armor plating... Imagine if he had a 105mm on top of that and it was instead piloted by someone who was intent on killing people.

Yeah sure, citizens could rise up to defend their town, but most aren't going to have the resources. The larger items for sale, would only benefit the elitists in my opinion.

Very well said.