NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?

If they're ever invented, it damn well should. I don't want the government telling me I can't have a mech.

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?

200+ years down the road, and they still can't decide which part of the vague sentence that comprises the bulk of the amendment they should put emphasis on... so, in dubio pro reo vis-à-vis the mechs, I suppose.

Damn right, it protects the right to keep and bear arms. Thats why I'm gonna move to the US and get me a mech, a nuke and as many chemical and biological weapons as I can lay my hands on. Just so I feel safe from the government and all those Johnny Foreigners. [/Sarcasm]

I was speaking to our good NS-exnation FWS the other and he was explaining how it includes rocket-launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry, so I don't see why not. On that note we should stop arresting Al Qaeda operatives, who are American citizens and posses nuclear devices. It's their right. When the government becomes tyrannical you'll be wanting my good mate Mohammed on our side.

EDIT: I've forgotten how much of that is sarcasm, in hindsight...

If you are strong enough...

bear
v. bore, (bôr, br) borne, (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn) bear·ing, bears
v. tr.

1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.

I say yes, simply because giant battle mechs are fucking sweet.

Hey neighbor, who we got into a friendly disupte with. Lets come over, and discuss this like mature people over a cup of tea.

*neighbioer comes over to your house, where you procide to kill him with you rgiant battle mech*

Nah, thats not a realistic scenario. But it would still be really neato to own one.

I'd have one. Only problem would be the horrendous parking fees...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Warlord.gif

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?

Probably they'll use the same argument that they already use to keep people (even in the army, if you drive a tank, it's not your tank, it's government property) from owning things like MBTs, attack helicopters, SAM batteries, B-52s and LGM-118 Peacemakers.

I'd have one. Only problem would be the horrendous parking fees...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Warlord.gif

Don't forget road tax. They charge it based on engine capacity (v6, v8, etc) and type over here I think, so imagine what your's would be.


Hey neighbor, who we got into a friendly disupte with. Lets come over, and discuss this like mature people over a cup of tea.

*neighbioer comes over to your house, where you procide to kill him with you rgiant battle mech*

The more realistic scenario is that you both run back to your gantries, warm up your mechs, and squash your properties flat in the ensuing firefight. Not to mention the rest of the neighborhood.

No. You have a right to bear arms, not to be borne by arms.

I said yes, because it would be so cool being able to commute in on of those beasts.

That being said, owning a mech would be prohibitively expensive for purchase, maintenance, and ammunition for the avg citizen. Even Bill Gates would think twice before commiting to those kinds of costs.

A mech is a horrid design, anyone who's played the computer games can tell you that. Not only are the legs very vulnerable to damage, the very bipedal structure is foolish. It puts entirely too much weight on too small an area, limiting the amount of armor and weapons the machine can support before sinking into the ground.

Indeed, I'll laugh at anyone trying to cause trouble with a 'mech as I blast them apart with my tank. :D

If giant battlemechs become widely available I will instantly drop my support for gun-control. :p

Probably they'll use the same argument that they already use to keep people (even in the army, if you drive a tank, it's not your tank, it's government property) from owning things like MBTs, attack helicopters, SAM batteries, B-52s and LGM-118 Peacemakers.

What is that argument? I've been curious about that for a while now.

It's generally accepted that by "arms" one means, "firearms."

So whole vehicle systems like uh, tanks, battleships, mechs... no.

It's generally accepted that by "arms" one means, "firearms."

So whole vehicle systems like uh, tanks, battleships, mechs... no.

But doesn't that make the title "The Armed Forces" kinda not work? And what would stop the singular arm being a nuclear arm?

But doesn't that make the title "The Armed Forces" kinda not work?

No. Cuz unless I'm mistaken, each armed forces branch trains and employs it's personnel in firearms.

And what would stop the singular arm being a nuclear arm?

Accepted usage.

No. Cuz unless I'm mistaken, each armed forces branch trains and employs it's personnel in firearms.



Accepted usage.

I started a thread about this coz I really want to understand it without hijacking this thread.

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?


You mean the ones in the following video games?:

Gun Metal

MechAssault

Murakumo

Hey look, they've just made myomers! Battlemechs, here we come! (http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/5/3/18/1)

You mean the ones in the following video games?:

Gun Metal

MechAssault

Murakumo

And all others.

I personally would prefer the EVAs in the later episodes of Neon Genesis. You know, after they've all gone crazy.

I started a thread about this coz I really want to understand it without hijacking this thread.

But the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is *exactly* what this thread is about. It wouldn't be a hijack.

What is that argument? I've been curious about that for a while now.

I'll be damned if I know. Maybe they just have some kind of law stating that it can be sold only to governments and there's no law against actual ownership of a tank, just that you can't get a seller.

Although if you built your own tank, that'd be fine. Transportation ministry might throw a fit, but that's about it.

And Santa Barbara, what about towed artillery? It's not a vehicle. It's just like a wheelbarrow. Ok, a wheelbarrow with a big gun on top, but still the same.

You probably could own one...

...but I doubt it would be legal to drive it down I-90....

And Santa Barbara, what about towed artillery? It's not a vehicle. It's just like a wheelbarrow. Ok, a wheelbarrow with a big gun on top, but still the same.

But you can't really bear it. See post #6.

But you can't really bear it. See post #6.

Yes, but must we not look behind the words and search for the true intent of the 2nd amendment? Wasn't the idea of the 2nd amendment to give the people to possibility to keep the government from becoming a dictatorship?

Obviously, the Founding Fathers were ignorant of the idea that at some point in the future insanely huge and incredibly powerful battle gigants could be used as weapons.

How can you fight against a government that has gone bad when you're solely armed a .45 when your opponent is 50 times the size of you, can probably fly and fire 50 missiles per second?

You probably could own one...

...but I doubt it would be legal to drive it down I-90....

If you had a tank that was built well enough, who'd stop you?

But you can't really bear it. See post #6.

You can't bear an M134 Minigun either, but people with class 3 licenses can own them. So what's wrong with towed or even static artillery?

If you had a tank that was built well enough, who'd stop you?

The National Guard, probably. Since the Highway Patrol and State Police would probably be way out of their league.... Maybe the Texas Rangers in Texas. :p

I'd have one. Only problem would be the horrendous parking fees...

Someone else can pay the fees. You can then just stomp on their car and take their spot. Technically, you're not taking up any more room.

Yes, but must we not look behind the words and search for the true intent of the 2nd amendment? Wasn't the idea of the 2nd amendment to give the people to possibility to keep the government from becoming a dictatorship?

In part, I believe so. But that's open to interpretation.

Practically speaking, being familiar with firearms is about all we can expect private citizens to do. Driving battlemechs would do more harm to their own country's infrastructure than good.

It's kind of like how you can't just gather 5,000 ordinary people and have them man an aircraft carrier.

You could get 5,000 guys with guns to help fight a guerilla war however.

You can't bear an M134 Minigun either, but people with class 3 licenses can own them. So what's wrong with towed or even static artillery?

*sigh*

Artillery is not a firearm. Neither is a nuke. Neither is a battlemech.

*sigh*

Artillery is not a firearm. Neither is a nuke. Neither is a battlemech.

The amendment never mentions firearms, it mentions arms. As to the bearing part, you can cary a small nuke.

*sigh*

Artillery is not a firearm. Neither is a nuke. Neither is a battlemech.

But civvies can own artillery. And tanks.

Just ask any of a thousand WWII re-enacters.

The amendment never mentions firearms, it mentions arms.

Accepted usage. How many times do I have to say it?

The only people who think "arms" in the 2nd refers to nuclear weapons are people who are deliberately misinterpreting it in order to make some smarmy little slippery slope argument.

But civvies can own artillery. And tanks.

Just ask any of a thousand WWII re-enacters.


That has less to do with this amendment and more to do with the fact that there really isn't a problem with owning antiques and replicas.

Accepted usage. How many times do I have to say it?

The only people who think "arms" in the 2nd refers to nuclear weapons are people who are deliberately misinterpreting it in order to make some smarmy little slippery slope argument.

But there were more weapons availabe when it was written than muskets. The blokes who wrote it must have been aware of this and chose not to restirct them.

That has less to do with this amendment and more to do with the fact that there really isn't a problem with owning antiques and replicas.

Then what do you say to the people who own Saracen light wheeled vehicles? Or people buying T-72s from Eastern Europe? As I recall, the most advanced tank in the Iraqi arsenal in 2003 was the T-72, but most of their tanks were the T-55 (which began development in 1944 as a replacement for the T-34/85. And the T-34/85 is still in service with many nations).

Then what do you say to the people who own Saracen light wheeled vehicles? Or people buying T-72s from Eastern Europe? As I recall, the most advanced tank in the Iraqi arsenal in 2003 was the T-72, but most of their tanks were the T-55 (which began development in 1944 as a replacement for the T-34/85. And the T-34/85 is still in service with many nations).

Are they also buying and firing ammunition?

Are they also buying and firing ammunition?

Probably just blanks....

I believe that the guns are supposed to be 'plugged' by law... but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to go in and remove the plug... but then your accuracy would be shot to hell.

Probably just blanks....

I believe that the guns are supposed to be 'plugged' by law... but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to go in and remove the plug... but then your accuracy would be shot to hell.

I contend that a tank without ammunition is just a vehicle (albeit a big and heavy one) and ownership thereof is simply more along the lines of owning other types of vehicles.

So maybe one could own a battlemech, but its guns would have to be plugged by law. And you'd probably need a permit to park or store or drive it anywhere... and it wouldn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

I quite agree with SB on this.

The founder's intent was that an armed populace was able to protect the nation, from outside invaders as well as the government.

Afaik, people weren't allowed to own cannons back then, even with that amendment. I don't see why a battlemech or nuke would be allowed now. The point was that, a citizenry armed with firearms could take on a foreign or governmental threat. And looking at history, most decently sized civilian resistance's worked out.

I contend that a tank without ammunition is just a vehicle (albeit a big and heavy one) and ownership thereof is simply more along the lines of owning other types of vehicles.

The government certainly treats them as such. Same with attack helicopters with deactivated weapons (there's a guy out here who owns two deactivated Cobras... it's kinda fun seeing them when I go to the movies). I believe that they have to be registered as tractors, although US law does not allow tracked vehicles to be driven on the Interstates and state and city laws vary... but you could own something like a deactivated LAV-III or a Strykker and still be street legal.

The government certainly treats them as such. Same with attack helicopters with deactivated weapons (there's a guy out here who owns two deactivated Cobras... it's kinda fun seeing them when I go to the movies). I believe that they have to be registered as tractors, although US law does not allow tracked vehicles to be driven on the Interstates and state and city laws vary... but you could own something like a deactivated LAV-III or a Strykker and still be street legal.

Yeah, just imagine the harbor fees you'd have to pay for, oh, i dunno... an Iowa class battleship.

It'd so be worth it.

Same thing with that ICBM missile base. Military stuff is cool to own.

I thought about getting a battlemech, but the fuel prices are going through the roof, and those mechs are almost as expensive to fuel as an SUV. So I'm trying Plan B. A kewl cyborg "arm" equipped with missle lauchers, lasers, grenades, and other weapons. It's got to be legal, since it's an "arm". :p

Yeah, just imagine the harbor fees you'd have to pay for, oh, i dunno... an Iowa class battleship.

It'd so be worth it.

Same thing with that ICBM missile base. Military stuff is cool to own.

You'd probably get a tax break if you opened it as a museum. :p

And people do live in refurbished ICBM bases. :eek: I assume you've seen the thread about the ICBM base for auction on eBay....

You'd probably get a tax break if you opened it as a museum. :p

And people do live in refurbished ICBM bases. :eek: I assume you've seen the thread about the ICBM base for auction on eBay....

Yes! I'd go for it, too, if only I had a few hundred thousand dollars to splurge on random property in Washington state.

Not sure I'd Live there. Maybe turn it into a big headshop...

Yes! I'd go for it, too, if only I had a few hundred thousand dollars to splurge on random property in Washington state.

Not sure I'd Live there. Maybe turn it into a big headshop...

If they were selling one in good condition here in Montana, and I had a million dollars burning a hole in my pocket, I'd buy it. And build a caslte on top. :p

What good is being a millionaire, if you can't live in a castle with automated machine gun turrets, anyway!?

Mech Fight!!!

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?


You can have my Catapult when you pry the neuro-helmet from my cold dead head.

http://www.battletech-movie.com/images/forum_pics/artwork/hall_of_fame/pawel/onslaught.jpg

You can have my Catapult when you pry the neuro-helmet from my cold dead head.


Pfft. Catapults are nothing more than glorified missile boats.

Anyways SB, so there really is nothing to keep you from owning heavy duty military hardware other than the costs and past felony records. It's just that it has to be safetied.

That tank looks like a Shilka....

So does this mean the parking inspectors will have bigger mechs in case someone tried to blow them up?

So does this mean the parking inspectors will have bigger mechs in case someone tried to blow them up?

Do current parking inspectors have bigger cars or armed ones for their current jobs? Nope. All they'll have is just the usual moped or patrol car. Which would make for some interesting times I think.

So does this mean the parking inspectors will have bigger mechs in case someone tried to blow them up?

Are you related to me? :eek:

Are you related to me? :eek:

Of course I am, I live right behind you!

...

Just joking!

Of course I am, I live right behind you!

...

Just joking!

:eek:

Accepted usage. How many times do I have to say it?

The only people who think "arms" in the 2nd refers to nuclear weapons are people who are deliberately misinterpreting it in order to make some smarmy little slippery slope argument.

Why? Because guns were around at the time of the Revolution and nukes weren't? Are you insinuating that "arms" is defined by a technology level?

Will laser guns and mass drivers not be covered? Hardly! Arms are weapons. Weapons, like cars or planes or boats can be REGULATED, but not banned.

This is why Prohibition failed. This is why the drug wars will fail. You can't allow the various freedoms of the Bill of Rights widely in one instance and narrowly in another.

The Second (and ALL Amendments) is just like the 1st:
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if there is no fire, but I can walk onto my town's gazebo and yell "I hate (whatever)" all I want. You like having Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh spouting their views? Great, that's your bag. But don't say I can't legally own my M-16, my 55" TV or my MiG-21 jet fighter. :)

(No, I don't actually own a MiG, but I *can* if I wanted to save my dimes & quarters...)

(No, I don't actually own a MiG, but I *can* if I wanted to save my dimes & quarters...)

That's a lot of dimes and quarters...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MIG-21-Mach-2-1-Jet-Fighter_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63679QQitemZ4632623954QQrdZ1

in principal of the intention of it, my understanding is that it is indeed MORE about politicaly signifigant military ordinance then ever it was intended to be about hunting rifles or bows and arrows or what have you.

so yes, in principal of the concept every law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and bear the latest most tecnologicaly advanced fighting vehicules with and capable of launching nuclear tipped intelligent bunker busting cruze missles.

in principal. in practice you'd pay bloody hell, but the whole idea was so that the populace COULD overthrow the government if enough of us thought we HAD to.

to make us think twice about attempting to on a spur of the moment whim, this was offset by the right the government reserved to capitaly terminate anyone who attempted to and failed.

=^^=
.../\...

I agree with all of those who say that "arms" refer to weapons, but is it really smart or useful to own a nuclear weapon? I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment allows for the right to bear arms of mass destruction. I doubt that for any reason whatsoever the US government would allow someone to own a weapon capable of starting WWIII. Think about all of the inherent dangers in owning such a weapon. Say someone in Iowa decided to fire off their tactical nuke at Russia. Then what happens? Russia fires back, thinking it was the US, granted that Russia is stupid enough to realize that only one missile went their way. For this reason I can see that, getting back to the original question on this forum, people might be allowed to own a mech warrior, if only because people can own tanks, armoured vehicles, etc. A mech warrior wouldn't be able to start WWIII unless it was equipped with the aforementioned nuke owned by the man in Iowa.

well i didn't mean to imply it had to have the range to make big holes in the ground half way arround the world, just enough to reach the white house, the pentagon and 'chyanne mountain'

=^^=
.../\...

I agree with all of those who say that "arms" refer to weapons, but is it really smart or useful to own a nuclear weapon? I seriously doubt that the 2nd amendment allows for the right to bear arms of mass destruction. I doubt that for any reason whatsoever the US government would allow someone to own a weapon capable of starting WWIII. Think about all of the inherent dangers in owning such a weapon. Say someone in Iowa decided to fire off their tactical nuke at Russia. Then what happens? Russia fires back, thinking it was the US, granted that Russia is stupid enough to realize that only one missile went their way. For this reason I can see that, getting back to the original question on this forum, people might be allowed to own a mech warrior, if only because people can own tanks, armoured vehicles, etc. A mech warrior wouldn't be able to start WWIII unless it was equipped with the aforementioned nuke owned by the man in Iowa.

Besides, even if it was legal to own them with true ICBM range, who'd own it? Things like these fall into the region of multi-billion dollar investments with constant maintanence upkeeps running into the 6 digit range. And that's not even counting the silos to launch them from. The only people who could buy stuff like that would probably be among the likes of Bill Gates or that Exxon former CEO and they certainly wouldn't have a reason to launch stuff like that.

Why? Because guns were around at the time of the Revolution and nukes weren't?

More or less. The idea of a nuclear bomb was not what the founding fathers had in mind because it didn't exist. Unless you know otherwise.

And yes, people use this argument to say that all they had in mind was muskets, hence modern pistols and rifles aren't allowed - but that's flawed. Modern firearms are still firearms and nothing more. A founding father would recognize one for what it essentially is. They are a personal weapon and not - for example - an automatic city-destruction device.

Will laser guns and mass drivers not be covered? Hardly!

How do you know?

Personally, I don't think owning a Death Star Laser will be covered by the constitution or any judge. A personal weapon? Well, thats a different story.

Arms are weapons. Weapons, like cars or planes or boats can be REGULATED, but not banned.

Ah, but regulation qualifies as "infringement," when it means you can't own a FUNCTIONING tank for example. You can't own a tank as a weapon, can you? That is to say, one with ammunition and a working cannon. I may be wrong.

This is why Prohibition failed. This is why the drug wars will fail. You can't allow the various freedoms of the Bill of Rights widely in one instance and narrowly in another.

Well, now you're talking about practical enforcement. I agree with you on prohibition and the 'war on drugs.' On topic, it will be insanely difficult for someone to covertly own a giant battlemech. They're kind of hard to conceal.

The Second (and ALL Amendments) is just like the 1st:
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if there is no fire, but I can walk onto my town's gazebo and yell "I hate (whatever)" all I want. You like having Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh spouting their views? Great, that's your bag. But don't say I can't legally own my M-16, my 55" TV or my MiG-21 jet fighter. :)

I'm saying your jet fighter isn't covered in this amendment, nor is your TV set.

Besides, even if it was legal to own them with true ICBM range, who'd own it? Things like these fall into the region of multi-billion dollar investments with constant maintanence upkeeps running into the 6 digit range. And that's not even counting the silos to launch them from. The only people who could buy stuff like that would probably be among the likes of Bill Gates or that Exxon former CEO and they certainly wouldn't have a reason to launch stuff like that.

True, but an ICBM isn't the only kind of nuke out there. Someone may, or may not, depending on how insane they are, possess a small tac nuke, which would have the power to pretty much wipe out Philadelphia or New York. There's no reason for such weapons to be available to the majority of the citizens of the United States. Hopefully, someone really does not own a tac nuke, because I would be hiding under my desk, even though it won't help me if my house is within the blast radius.

That's a lot of dimes and quarters...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MIG-21-Mach-2-1-Jet-Fighter_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63679QQitemZ4632623954QQrdZ1

If I had a couple tens of thousands of dollars laying around, I'd so buy that....

Then I would possess an air force more advanced than China's!

No, it gives bears the right to have arms. Jolly good thing, I say, otherwise you'd have people running around hacking bears' arms off.

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?

One would certainly hope so. :)

One would certainly hope so. :)

I'd rather have the Mig. :p

Battlemechs are just too slow, to ungainly and too damned big. Plus they have crap-ass for weapon range. Not sure what i'd do with a nuke, whether ICBM or backpack. Owning a Bradley or an Abrams would be really nice for morning traffic through Seattle. Tailgate me some more asshole, and I'll pop a 120mm shell through your radiator!.:D :sniper:

No, it gives bears the right to have arms. Jolly good thing, I say, otherwise you'd have people running around hacking bears' arms off.

your right, that is a good thing... bears are mean, I wouldnt want to be the one in charge of walking up to one with a big axe... bear would probably maul me

phew, thank you founding fathers for the secon amendment, slightly less chance of bear-mauling... yay

lol

I can only pray it does, or how else will I get my hands on a Gundam? :D

I can only pray it does, or how else will I get my hands on a Gundam? :D

By going to Wal*Mart like everyone else. :p

Does the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) include gigantic battle mechas?
Only if they don't violate public safety.

Owning a Bradley or an Abrams would be really nice for morning traffic through Seattle. Tailgate me some more asshole, and I'll pop a 120mm shell through your radiator!.:D :sniper:

Pfft. Shooting someone with the main gun of a tank pales in comparison to simply just stepping on them and their car. There's nothing like it.


True, but an ICBM isn't the only kind of nuke out there. Someone may, or may not, depending on how insane they are, possess a small tac nuke, which would have the power to pretty much wipe out Philadelphia or New York.

They still cost hideous amounts of money to own and maintain. Nuclear warheads degrade over time IIRC and require constant maintanence to make sure that it goes boom instead of fizzle when you press that button. I contend that only the really rich multi-millionaires would still be the only ones who could afford it.

More or less. The idea of a nuclear bomb was not what the founding fathers had in mind because it didn't exist. Unless you know otherwise.

The founding fathers also didn't conceive of the Internet. Should we recind Free Speech on all electronic mediums? How about banning blank CDs since they are used to pirate music?

Simply put, technology is not a lever against rights. The courts have proven this time and time again.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm
...most are good examples, but I'd particularly like to cite:

United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000)
American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d. 874 (1997)

And yes, people use this argument to say that all they had in mind was muskets, hence modern pistols and rifles aren't allowed - but that's flawed. Modern firearms are still firearms and nothing more. A founding father would recognize one for what it essentially is. They are a personal weapon and not - for example - an automatic city-destruction device.

This is interesting:
http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm
"Jefferson seemed to think that "arms" included even full-blown naval guns, a category that included some of the most powerful weapons of his day. In fact, he understood the militia mentioned in the Constitution to include units of infantry, cavalry and artillery.54 Therefore, he must have imagined few limits (if any) on the kinds of arms needed to equip that militia of private citizens."
... I likewise believe that so long as the citizen is legal (not a felon, mentally sane, et al), there is no reason why not to own anything.

How do you know?

Personally, I don't think owning a Death Star Laser will be covered by the constitution or any judge. A personal weapon? Well, thats a different story.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...Congress could (in theory) ban such a weapon, as weapons have been by the various gun control laws that have (unfortunately) been passed by the Democratic Presidents in the 20th century.


Ah, but regulation qualifies as "infringement," when it means you can't own a FUNCTIONING tank for example. You can't own a tank as a weapon, can you? That is to say, one with ammunition and a working cannon. I may be wrong.

Actually... yes!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Own-a-military-tank-Studebaker-Weasel-M29C_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80765QQitemZ4628305145
...though there may be local laws barring owning them, but there is no national law against owning one.

You can even own a tank in Canada!
http://www.westerncommand.com/html-old/faq.htm

Well, now you're talking about practical enforcement. I agree with you on prohibition and the 'war on drugs.' On topic, it will be insanely difficult for someone to covertly own a giant battlemech. They're kind of hard to conceal.

Not exactly. I'm talking about these are things which are just plain bad ideas. I'm totally against censorship, gun control, Prohibition, drug interdiction, etc.

I'm not saying anyone needs to covertly own a giant battlemech. They should be legal to drive just like a Hummer so long as they've passed inspection and the citizen is licensed. :)

I'm saying your jet fighter isn't covered in this amendment, nor is your TV set.

Exactly! Thus, unless it's expressly banned, it's fair game to own.

If Americans start walking around in battlemechs, I'm moving to Europe. There is no way in hell you're going to get me living beside them if they have that sort of crap! :p Bad enough with guns, nevermind massive assault vehicles.

Doesn't matter to me. Several of my friends and I have plans to join the Atlantic Army as soon as we've got our mechs. Highlander, baby.

How come Saddam didn't have the right to bear his WMDs? (even tho they didn't exist...)
Seems kinda hypocritical to me.

:) Saddam isn't a citizen of the U.S., so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to him?

How come Saddam didn't have the right to bear his WMDs? (even tho they didn't exist...)
Seems kinda hypocritical to me.

Arms means rifles, pistols, shotguns, mini-guns, etc. Not WMD or "Battlemechs", which, by the way, are so 1990s.

Probably they'll use the same argument that they already use to keep people (even in the army, if you drive a tank, it's not your tank, it's government property) from owning things like MBTs, attack helicopters, SAM batteries, B-52s and LGM-118 Peacemakers.
And those arguments will be as much bullshit then as they are now--in other words, totally.

Arms means rifles, pistols, shotguns, mini-guns, etc.

Well, if you mean gunpowder based weapons, that would mean I'd be able to own some pretty hefty artillery pieces if I could scrape together the cash. Although hiding a 16" cannon or rail mounted "Big Bertha" in my backyard might be a bit difficult.

Arms means rifles, pistols, shotguns, mini-guns, etc. Not WMD or "Battlemechs", which, by the way, are so 1990s.
Exactly. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, <b>the right of the people to keep and bear arms</b>, shall not be infringed.

I don't think a Battlemech qualfies as an "arm".

Well, if you mean gunpowder based weapons, that would mean I'd be able to own some pretty hefty artillery pieces if I could scrape together the cash. Although hiding a 16" cannon or rail mounted "Big Bertha" in my backyard might be a bit difficult.

I still maintain "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "small arms."

Markreich, do you HONESTLY believe that just being "sane" is a good reason for a CITIZEN to possess a NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPON?

Think about your answer.

And no, your tanks you listed are not functional weapons. I saw no working gun tubes and I would guess that the courts would have an issue with you firing live ammunition.

Exactly. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, <b>the right of the people to keep and bear arms</b>, shall not be infringed.

I don't think a Battlemech qualfies as an "arm".

I don't think Wiccan is a religion either. :D

I still maintain "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "small arms."

Markreich, do you HONESTLY believe that just being "sane" is a good reason for a CITIZEN to possess a NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPON?

Think about your answer.

And no, your tanks you listed are not functional weapons. I saw no working gun tubes and I would guess that the courts would have an issue with you firing live ammunition.

Yep. So long as he has the proper licensing... however stringent that may be: getting a Level 3 firearms license these days is a BITCH!
As for reason, there are no valid reasons for Lexus SUVs, super sized fries, 85" TVs... etc.

All I could find on the subject was that one has to comply with local gun laws. New Hamphire & Alaska have none. Hmm... :cool: