Why aren't gun-lovers lobbying for the right to own rocket launchers?

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#51 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] So the demand is low then. Why is demand so low when it's in the best interest of Americans to arm themselves against a government that has the most advanced military in the world at it's disposal?Chickity_China

As has been explained a couple times already, the facilities and resources needed to properly store and dispose of these things is a huge barrier to entry. Firearms and firearm ammo is just more practical.

Then again, I don't complain about the people that are able to own them legally.

Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

Avatar image for Chickity_China
#52 Posted by Chickity_China (2322 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

As has been explained a couple times already, the facilities and resources needed to properly store and dispose of these things is a huge barrier to entry. Firearms and firearm ammo is just more practical.

Then again, I don't complain about the people that are able to own them legally.

VoodooHak

Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

200 years ago civilians were better armed than the army sure, but nowadays we have some catching up to do. I do recommend you get rocket launchers if your belief truly is in owning guns to protect your rights against the government. That's not my logic. I'm not proposing an all out ban on guns. No body is. I'm pretty sure I don't need an assault rifle to defend against intruders though.
Avatar image for thegerg
#53 Posted by thegerg (18329 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

As has been explained a couple times already, the facilities and resources needed to properly store and dispose of these things is a huge barrier to entry. Firearms and firearm ammo is just more practical.

Then again, I don't complain about the people that are able to own them legally.

VoodooHak

Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

"After all, colonists were better armed than the army." Wait, what? No.
Avatar image for VoodooHak
#54 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.Chickity_China

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

200 years ago civilians were better armed than the army sure, but nowadays we have some catching up to do. I do recommend you get rocket launchers if your belief truly is in owning guns to protect your rights against the government. That's not my logic. I'm not proposing an all out ban on guns. No body is. I'm pretty sure I don't need an assault rifle to defend against intruders though.

I don't need a semi-automatic rifle (assalt rifle is a fear-mongering misnomer) either. I'm content with a handgun. So you dont' feel you need a rifle. Cool. Then don't get one. That's as much your choice as it is mine.

But I won't criticize or attempt to restrict anyone that feels that they do need one. That's their right and none of my business.

Avatar image for Chickity_China
#55 Posted by Chickity_China (2322 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

VoodooHak

200 years ago civilians were better armed than the army sure, but nowadays we have some catching up to do. I do recommend you get rocket launchers if your belief truly is in owning guns to protect your rights against the government. That's not my logic. I'm not proposing an all out ban on guns. No body is. I'm pretty sure I don't need an assault rifle to defend against intruders though.

I don't need a semi-automatic rifle (assalt rifle is a fear-mongering misnomer) either. I'm content with a handgun. So you dont' feel you need a rifle. Cool. Then don't get one. That's as much your choice as it is mine.

But I won't criticize or attempt to restrict anyone that feels that they do need one. That's their right and none of my business.

When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.
Avatar image for VoodooHak
#56 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.thegerg

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

"After all, colonists were better armed than the army." Wait, what? No.

Sure. The continental army could barely get uniforms and shoes for their soldiers, let alone adequate weapons. Volunteers brought their own to add to the effort. The Kentucky rifelmen had rifled barrels, fairly new at the time and were more accurate at 300 yards, outclassing the American and British infantrymen who used smoothe bore muskets that had a range of 50 yards. They carried several around with them in battle since they were hard to reload. The army even borrowed canons from civilans to use in battles.

These are part of the historical record.

Avatar image for thegerg
#57 Posted by thegerg (18329 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

VoodooHak

"After all, colonists were better armed than the army." Wait, what? No.

Sure. The continental army could barely get uniforms and shoes for their soldiers, let alone adequate weapons. Volunteers brought their own to add to the effort. The Kentucky rifelmen had rifled barrels, fairly new at the time and were more accurate at 300 yards, outclassing the American and British infantrymen who used smoothe bore muskets that had a range of 50 yards. They carried several around with them in battle since they were hard to reload. The army even borrowed canons from civilans to use in battles.

These are part of the historical record.

I thought you meant the British, that had muskets, cannon, mortors, etc..
Avatar image for VoodooHak
#58 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] 200 years ago civilians were better armed than the army sure, but nowadays we have some catching up to do. I do recommend you get rocket launchers if your belief truly is in owning guns to protect your rights against the government. That's not my logic. I'm not proposing an all out ban on guns. No body is. I'm pretty sure I don't need an assault rifle to defend against intruders though.Chickity_China

I don't need a semi-automatic rifle (assalt rifle is a fear-mongering misnomer) either. I'm content with a handgun. So you dont' feel you need a rifle. Cool. Then don't get one. That's as much your choice as it is mine.

But I won't criticize or attempt to restrict anyone that feels that they do need one. That's their right and none of my business.

When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.

It's our business to be less myopic about what's causing these people to commit crime. It's not just guns. There are larger, more complex issues like mental health laws, drug use, gangs and poverty. These are all drivers of violence outside of firearms entirely. FBI uniform crime stats allow us see what neighborhoods are producing high crime.... and those other things I mentioned tend to go part and parcel with the violence.

Why aren't we dedicating more resources toword those? Because guns are intellectual low hanging fruit. And it's hard to think of anything else when everyone is stuck in this emotional bubble that's not allowing them to seek answers where they really could be.

Avatar image for Chickity_China
#59 Posted by Chickity_China (2322 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I don't need a semi-automatic rifle (assalt rifle is a fear-mongering misnomer) either. I'm content with a handgun. So you dont' feel you need a rifle. Cool. Then don't get one. That's as much your choice as it is mine.

But I won't criticize or attempt to restrict anyone that feels that they do need one. That's their right and none of my business.

VoodooHak

When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.

It's our business to be less myopic about what's causing these people to commit crime. It's not just guns. There are larger, more complex issues like mental health laws, drug use, gangs and poverty. These are all drivers of violence outside of firearms entirely. FBI uniform crime stats allow us see what neighborhoods are producing high crime.... and those other things I mentioned tend to go part and parcel with the violence.

Why aren't we dedicating more resources toword those? Because guns are intellectual low hanging fruit. And it's hard to think of anything else when everyone is stuck in this emotional bubble that's not allowing them to seek answers where they really could be.

I agree it's not just guns, but guns are a big part of the issue. Therefore, an assault rifle ban is part of the solution to reduce future mass shootings or at the very least make it so it's harder for a single person to shooting so many people in a short amount of time.

I'm not trying to stop violent street crime as you seem to believe. That's a much larger issue. I'm only supporting an assault weapon ban to reduce the number of deaths in future shooting sprees. For example, a couple weeks ago my parents were talking about a knifing spree in China where a couple dozen people were injured but no one was killed. If the assailant had an assault rifle it would have made for a much more gruesome headline.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#60 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

Haven't you been to the movie theatre and it tells you to turn off all bazookas until after the movie?

TheHighWind

lol. In 2006 a bunch of my relatives where going on a trip to Florida and about a week or so before they were set to leave, U.S. and U.K. authorities foiled a terrorist plot to blow up some planes on transatlantic flights and the airport security people announced that they would be banning certain liquids like baby formula. So my uncles and cousins called the airport to see what they can't bring on the plane and the guy on the phone told them among other things "no baseball bats, no TNT, no dynamite, no bazookas".

Avatar image for whipassmt
#61 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.Chickity_China

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

200 years ago civilians were better armed than the army sure, but nowadays we have some catching up to do. I do recommend you get rocket launchers if your belief truly is in owning guns to protect your rights against the government. That's not my logic. I'm not proposing an all out ban on guns. No body is. I'm pretty sure I don't need an assault rifle to defend against intruders though.

what if the intruder has an assault rifle, or what if there are multiple armed intruders?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#62 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I don't need a semi-automatic rifle (assalt rifle is a fear-mongering misnomer) either. I'm content with a handgun. So you dont' feel you need a rifle. Cool. Then don't get one. That's as much your choice as it is mine.

But I won't criticize or attempt to restrict anyone that feels that they do need one. That's their right and none of my business.

VoodooHak

When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.

It's our business to be less myopic about what's causing these people to commit crime. It's not just guns. There are larger, more complex issues like mental health laws, drug use, gangs and poverty. These are all drivers of violence outside of firearms entirely. FBI uniform crime stats allow us see what neighborhoods are producing high crime.... and those other things I mentioned tend to go part and parcel with the violence.

Why aren't we dedicating more resources toword those? Because guns are intellectual low hanging fruit. And it's hard to think of anything else when everyone is stuck in this emotional bubble that's not allowing them to seek answers where they really could be.

Don't forget, family breakdown/broken homes as one of the "drivers of violence".

Avatar image for whipassmt
#63 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.Chickity_China

It's our business to be less myopic about what's causing these people to commit crime. It's not just guns. There are larger, more complex issues like mental health laws, drug use, gangs and poverty. These are all drivers of violence outside of firearms entirely. FBI uniform crime stats allow us see what neighborhoods are producing high crime.... and those other things I mentioned tend to go part and parcel with the violence.

Why aren't we dedicating more resources toword those? Because guns are intellectual low hanging fruit. And it's hard to think of anything else when everyone is stuck in this emotional bubble that's not allowing them to seek answers where they really could be.

I agree it's not just guns, but guns are a big part of the issue. Therefore, an assault rifle ban is part of the solution to reduce future mass shootings or at the very least make it so it's harder for a single person to shooting so many people in a short amount of time.

I'm not trying to stop violent street crime as you seem to believe. That's a much larger issue. I'm only supporting an assault weapon ban to reduce the number of deaths in future shooting sprees. For example, a couple weeks ago my parents were talking about a knifing spree in China where a couple dozen people were injured but no one was killed. If the assailant had an assault rifle it would have made for a much more gruesome headline.

Maybe an assault rifle ban wouldn't reduce mass shootings, maybe it would only increase weapons smuggling. Maybe an assault rifle ban would mean that law abiding citizens in border states like Arizona will have their assault rifles confiscated, while drug smugglers and gangs from Mexico will break into their house armed with assault rifles that may have wound up in their hands due to the ATF's botched handling of "Operation Fast and Furious".

Avatar image for airshocker
#64 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Because we, unlike the liberals who don't own guns and don't care to educate themselves on the issue, are reasonable.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#65 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

VoodooHak

Try destroying a tank or shooting down a fighter jet with an AR15 then we can discuss practical.

We're not near any point where anyone would take up arms against our government, but I do believe in being prepared. So maybe I should get an RPG or full on missile launcher. There are legal means to obtain them. After all, colonists were better armed than the army. Heck, the army borrowed their canons and used civilan marksmen.

So let's use your logic:

Try stopping an armed man that just kicked down your door by calling 911 or drawing a knife. Now this scenario is more likely to happen than an armed uprising.

No, no no. What you are supposed to do when an armed man enters your home is show him your sign that says "Gun Free Zone".

Avatar image for VoodooHak
#66 Posted by VoodooHak (15989 posts) -

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] When your right becomes an exploit for the mentally insane and criminals to slaughter dozens of innocents at a time it becomes my business.Chickity_China

It's our business to be less myopic about what's causing these people to commit crime. It's not just guns. There are larger, more complex issues like mental health laws, drug use, gangs and poverty. These are all drivers of violence outside of firearms entirely. FBI uniform crime stats allow us see what neighborhoods are producing high crime.... and those other things I mentioned tend to go part and parcel with the violence.

Why aren't we dedicating more resources toword those? Because guns are intellectual low hanging fruit. And it's hard to think of anything else when everyone is stuck in this emotional bubble that's not allowing them to seek answers where they really could be.

I agree it's not just guns, but guns are a big part of the issue. Therefore, an assault rifle ban is part of the solution to reduce future mass shootings or at the very least make it so it's harder for a single person to shooting so many people in a short amount of time.

I'm not trying to stop violent street crime as you seem to believe. That's a much larger issue. I'm only supporting an assault weapon ban to reduce the number of deaths in future shooting sprees. For example, a couple weeks ago my parents were talking about a knifing spree in China where a couple dozen people were injured but no one was killed. If the assailant had an assault rifle it would have made for a much more gruesome headline.

I would consider an "assault rifle" ban if they could objectively define what an "assault" weapon is. Many of the definitions are blatantly arbitrary. On top of that, rifles make up less than one percent of crimes committed. I would consider one if they could provide any empirical evidence that one would work. Right now, the facts show that such a ban did not work. Columbine and 27 other mass school shootings occurred despite a ban being in place. The facts show that gun control hasn't consistently reduced crime when implemented.

So no, I don't agree that a rifle ban would be part of the solution. It's an irresponsible waste of energy, energy that could be directed toward more sensible crime reduction efforts.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#67 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9410 posts) -

Because we, unlike the liberals who don't own guns and don't care to educate themselves on the issue, are reasonable.

airshocker
I'm liberal and own several guns.