If I Had a Rocket Launcher...

[phantom power]

I want a AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. I am assured that it is the best attack helicopter in the world and if it's not, it's close enough. It can fly 184 miles per hour. It can go 323 miles on a tank of gas. It has a 30mm automatic cannon that can fire 1200 rounds, and it can carry 16 antitank Hellfire missiles. It can also carry 76 unguided 2.75 inch rockets. With this helicopter, I could theoretically destroy 80% of a standard Russian tank battalion in a single sortie. I am firmly convinced that possession of this helicopter will prevent me from ever having to worry about a situation where law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. In fact, the mere possibility of such a breakdown in civilization means that I have an inalterable and inalienable right to this helicopter, because there is nothing so poorly regulated as an armed gang.

At first, I thought that a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle or a double-barrel shotgun would be sufficient, especially if equipped with the correct accoutrements. But the more I dwell on Lindsey Graham's dystopian talking points, the more I feel compelled to be on the safe side.

I'm going with the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. Just try and stop me.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/3/6/214755/0042

[slackmaster]

1. If you can pass the background checks for the guns and missiles, and can afford them...

...and the maintenance on the helicopter as well as the purchase price, go right ahead. You have a right to own it.

[wtmusic]

9. Can I get an atom bomb?

I wanna drop it on this dude.

(You're funny).

[Recursion]

25. If you're rich enough you could buy GE, so yes

Though the NPT and DOE set strict limits on how they can be stored.

[wtmusic]

27. Fuck the nuke-grabbers and their limits. I have my second amendment rights

and I want to drop it on OP.

[Recursion]

28. Nukes cost an absolute shit-ton of money, and there are strict access limits

But, yes, if you buy the companies that the US contracts to make them, you would own some nukes.

[wtmusic]

29. The access limits are a violation of the Second Amendment

just like high-capacity clips.

Go for it.

[Recursion]

30. Nope, use of arms is not the same as the keeping and bearing of arms

The use of arms has always been subject to legal restriction.

This is one of those "I know you think you're being clever, but what you're claiming as satire is actually true" moments.

[wtmusic]

32. Bullshit.

Keeping and bearing of arms is highly restricted.

You don't know too much, do you?

[Recursion]

35. I'm not sure what you consider "highly" restricted

There are few Federal impediments (though there are regulations of interstate sales of them). Localities have various degrees of regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms; the Supreme Court recently said they have significant leeway to do so as long as they don't have an outright ban like DC and Chicago attempted.

The use of firearms is much more strictly regulated, though.

But, anyways, nuclear devices are not firearms, and they are governed by US and international law, but it is possible to own them, though that's not a question of the 2nd Amendment in particular, because they are not infantry weapons.

[wtmusic]

38. Of course, it doesn't say "firearms" in the Constitution.

I want my nuke, and you are restricting me. Your restriction is, for all practical purposes, a ban.

[Recursion]

41. Take it up with the Supreme Court; that's how the law has been decided for 80 years

Since Miller, the Court has held that the 2nd amendment applies only to weapons that are commonly in use by infantry of the day. So a sawed off shotgun can be banned because it is insufficiently military.

[wtmusic]

43. Nukes are commonly in use by infantry?

I had no idea.

[Recursion]

45. No, that's my point. This whole idea is a strawman

Nobody has claimed the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own nuclear weapons. There's no slippery slope; it's defined by law and has been for 80 years: the 2nd amendment applies to rifles, shotguns, pistols, and hand-to-hand weapons.

The fact that you *can* own a nuclear weapon if you buy the right companies is an interesting bit of trivia, but not relevant to the question.

[wtmusic]

48. But...but...SCOTUS is the government. I have guns to protect myself from the government.

Gun advocates only support government when it supports them. That's not really the way democracy works.

Kind of like Republicans. In fact, very much like Republicans.

[ellisonz]

84. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

[Scuba]

13. By your logic, the wealthy would have enough weaponry to destroy everyone else.

You ready to bow down before Mitt and his friends?

[wtmusic]

23. Much as they try and deny it, the pro-gun argument always steers right.

Gotta keep our eyes on "big government".

[Recursion]

26. You've never heard of Blackwater?

What the hell do you think that is?

[EOTE]

14. I don't believe a civilian could own an Apache.

I'd sure like to see if you have any information stating otherwise. And if a civilian CAN own such a thing, just where do you draw the line? Are bunker busters allowed, but not nukes? What kind of absurd mutually assured destruction could that prompt?

[Pararescue]

19. You can buy a Main Battle Tank if you have the money,

and it can have a fully functional main gun as long as you can pass the ATF background check and pay the $200.00 tax stamp.

I don't know about the Apache being for sale to civilians, but you can buy a Russian MI-24 if you have the money.

http://www.asiatradingonline.com/russianhelicopter24.htm

[EOTE]

31. It seems as if they are marketing those to military support organizations.

Like Blackwater, XE and such. I still see nothing in there that suggests that anyone with substantial sums of cash can pick one up AND legally operate it. And also, my question still stands. I'm sure even the nuttiest of gun nuts will admit that there's a limit to the arms a civilian can own. I can't imagine that any of them are suggesting that attack helicopters loaded with missiles and 30mm guns aren't well past that limit.

[One_Life_To_Give]

37. Create your own Corporation, same as sports stars

EOTE_Water or some such. And you can buy just about anything your heart desires.

[Pararescue]

44. They might be marketing to military support orgs.

but american civilians can and do own fighter jets, tanks, attack helos which are all legal to own and can have fully functional armaments as long as an ATF background check is passed, get all the necessary permits, and the $200.00 tax stamp is paid.

Here's a website that offers ex military helos for sale.

http://www.globalplanesearch.com/warbirds/helicopters/

By armaments, I mean the machine guns that come with the helos, not the missiles or rockets, I think.

[EOTE]

46. I see the links you're providing.

But I see nothing in either of those links which states that civilians can own these, with functional armaments. I also see no one even attempting to answer my main question. I'm sure you'll concede that there is SOME limit to the level of armaments that civilians can own. Where do those limits come into play? My guess is that it's well before an attack helicopter.

[Pararescue]

49. Sure there are limits.

I edited my previous post, civilians can't have missiles or rockets but you can own the machine guns that are equipped with these helos as long as the background check is done, and the tax stamp is paid.

Of course these are closely watched by the authorities.

[EOTE]

55. So, my comment remains.

I was responding to Slackmaster's assertions that it would be perfectly legal to own an Apache as listed above so long as one had the cash and licenses. That doesn't appear to be true. The whole point of the above article is that limitations CAN be imposed on the weapons one owns. I would not want to live in a country where those limitations don't exist.

[Pararescue]

57. Neither would I want to live in a country like that.

See Slackmaster's comments to my question below.

[EOTE]

61. I see his assertion, but I see nothing in terms of proof backing that up.

I would imagine that there's a good deal more, aside from proprietary technology, that prevents one from owning a missile. I've looked it up, but can't find information suggesting one way or another. However, I'd imagine there would at least be some information out there suggesting it's legal if it is.

[Pararescue]

64. I looked also and couldn't find anything about the legality of owning one.

I know you can own an inert SLBM Polaris Missile without any permits or background checks.

I thought you could find anything on the net, but I guess not.

[EOTE]

67. I did find this, which suggests that it's illegal.

And I don't have much issue with someone purchasing an inert anything. I do have substantial issues with any civilian being able to own something which could decimate a city block or more.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/29/1508251/gun-buyback-missile-launcher/

[Pararescue]

68. The launcher itself isn't illegal to own,

it's just a fiberglass tube with wires and switches and are single shot systems. You can buy those at any gun show, surplus store, it's the rocket that's probably illegal to own. The only danger from a launcher is if you use it as a club because that's about all you can do with it.
That article was pure shit by the way they portrayed it.

[jeff47]

18. Nope. No right to own explosives, which the rockets and missiles are. (nt)

[wtmusic]

20. He could take the warheads off the missiles and replace them with paintballs.

Bigass ones.

[jeff47]

22. The rocket motor is also an explosive. (nt)

[wtmusic]

24. So is a bullet.

The gun issue is a soup of contradictions.

[sarisataka]

33. A bullet is a projectile

gunpowder is a flammable solid, the primer is explosive but is considered an ignitor so is only considered an explosive prior to be assembled into a cartridge.

[wtmusic]

34. Blah blah considered blah, but blah blah.

By that rationale I can consider a coke can full of nails and gunpowder a "projectile".

[sarisataka]

40. I can consider a toaster

a winning lottery ticket but I will have trouble collecting. I could consider trinitrotoluene a cleaning solvent but DOT will have a lot to say when I am driving it down the road. HazMat definitions are clear.

A coke can full of nails and gunpowder is an IED, the nails are the projectiles.

[wtmusic]

42. I love it when gun advocates go absolutist.

What if I put my Coke can in a tube? Is it a bullet yet?

Can we save some time and admit these designations are totally arbitrary?

[sarisataka]

47. Nothing absolutist. The problem is they are not arbitrary

but vitally important. Take a look and a few laws and see how many begin with a section labeled "Definitions". To regulate an item or action it must first be clearly defined.

If you fire your coke can out of a tube, it is a projectile, yet still explosive. If you fill it with concrete, then launch it, it would be considered a bullet. A bullet is an inert projectile.

The failure of many bad, and some good, gun control efforts and because of two reasons. Either they fail to define specifically what they are regulation or they use an arbitrary definition- i.e. assault rifle, which has no clear cut meaning. Nearly everything related to firearms has a clear accepted definition; ironically "assault rifles" do not. Even in the shooting community there is debate of what is and what is not an "assault rifle"

[wtmusic]

52. So you agree that gun control is not (categorically) a bad idea? nt

[sarisataka]

58. I have no problem with the concept of

effective gun control. I am against feels good but really doesn't accomplish anything gun control.

Background checks- fine, training requirements- a good argument can be made, ban it because of the color and it looks scary- not so much

[wtmusic]

62. Gotcha

although people who have a life outside of Democratic Underground scare me.

[sarisataka]

66. This weekend up here in the snow

we talk about people who have a life outside of hockey

[wtmusic]

56. Hmmmmm?

C'mon, the first step is always the hardest.

[sarisataka]

59. Have to catch me during breaks

in the action. Hockey tourney is on Duluth and Moorhead now; I'm cheering on the Pioneers tonight

[slackmaster]

50. People can buy, own, make, and fire quite substantial rocket motors

[jeff47]

74. With appropriate licenses, yes. But the fact they need a license means it isn't a right. (nt)

[slackmaster]

77. Is there not a right to marriage?

For simplicity of this discussion, let's limit the question to heterosexual marriage between one adult man and one adult woman who are not already married.

Is it possible to get legally married in any state without a state-issued marriage license?

[jeff47]

80. No, there isn't. There is a right to equal treatment under the law.

So "gay marriage" has to be as legal as "straight marriage".

Is it possible to get legally married in any state without a state-issued marriage license?

Yes, many states recognize common-law marriages.

[slackmaster]

82. But there are specific legal conditions for common-law marriage.

i.e. a specified period of time that the couple must have lived together continuously.

I am not aware of any state where a couple can declare themselves as legally married without meeting some kind of state-imposed requirement.

That doesn't mean that marriage is not a right. Same-sex marriage is a right, of course. But that right has been infringed.

[jeff47]

85. And there are specific legal conditions for not-common-law marriages

such as getting a license.

That doesn't mean that marriage is not a right.

It isn't a right. The right infringed by banning same-sex marriage is the right to equal treatment under the law.

If a state lets straight couples marry, then it has to let homosexual couples marry. If a state doesn't let straight couples marry, then it doesn't have to let homosexual couples marry.

[slackmaster]

88. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that marriage is a fundamental right.

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

[slackmaster]

51. Anyone who can qualify for a license can own and and use explosives

[Pararescue]

53. Question, because I'm not sure

but can a civilian, as long as they pass the ATF background check, get the necessary permits and pay the tax stamp, have the missiles and rockets on a private owned attack helo?
Thanks in advance.

[slackmaster]

54. They're destructive devices under the law. It is at least theoretically possible to buy them...

...with a background check and payment of a $200 transfer tax.

But modern weapons typically contain classified navigation and guidance systems, which could stymie an attempt by a civilian to acquire a fully functional one.

So in reality you probably can't, but not because they are missiles with explosives.

[sarisataka]

63. Another issue is

you are getting involved in items regulated by weapon proliferation treaties. Civilian ownership could be prohibited due to the inability to control whom a private party could pass the weapons to.

[Xithras]

69. To answer your question...

...legally yes. If you passed the federal background checks and paid the fees, you could get all of the licenses needed to own all of those things. Keep in mind that the licensing of explosive devices also limits how you can store and transport them, so you're not going to be taking them anywhere in your car trunk, or storing them in your garage. You'll need to show that you own land outside of a residential neighborhood where its stored, that you have all of the appropriate storage permits and licenses from your local and state governments, and that you have an explosives bunker to keep them in. You're going to spend a LOT of money, but there are plenty of demolition companies and miners that have jumped through the hoops and have private explosives caches.

Actually PURCHASING the missile will be another story. The weapon designs used by our military are owned by the government and controlled by treaties, so you're not going to be able to find any missile manufacturers who are willing to sell you a new one. The U.S. government, by policy, doesn't sell them either. And it's a felony to import one. You have one of those situations where you CAN get the permits to own one, but the permits aren't going to do you much good without a willing seller.

You could build your own though. How hard can it be to design your own guided missile system?

[Pararescue]

70. Great information.

Thank you.
I guess it's not hard to make an unguided rocket, a model rocket with an explosive charge in the nose cone would feasible.
As far as a guided missile, way beyond my expertise.

[Xithras]

71. There are a number of DIY cruise missile projects on the Internet.

You'll have to deal with the FAA too if you want to launch it, but there are a number of sites on the Internet with the plans and code to build one yourself. The trick seems to be that you have to keep the speed under 230MPH, which is the point where civilian GPS stops working. That's about half the speed of a military grade missile like the Tomahawk.

A few years ago there was a guy in New Zealand who was designing and building a low cost "homebrew" cruise missile and documenting it on the Internet, step by step. The US government leaned hard on the Kiwis and got them to shut it down. It was a bad move in the end, as it just made people mad and inspired others to post their own plans online.

[Pararescue]

72. Thanks.

I guess you can find just about anything on the internet.

[jeff47]

75. And by needing to qualify for a license, it isn't a right

You don't have to qualify for a license for free speech, for example.

[slackmaster]

76. You can't be arbitrarily denied an explosives permit for a capricious reason.

You have a right to get such a permit, unless you have something in your background that disqualifies you.

[jeff47]

78. What in your background would disqualify you from free speech? (nt)

[slackmaster]

79. Being a convicted felon held in solitary confinement in prison

They can't deny you the right to speak, but they can deny you an audience.

Even regular felons in high-security prisons don't have access to the Internet or cell phones, and only limited access to land line phones.

All rights are subject to limitation through due process of law, including the right to live.

[jeff47]

81. Convicted felons in prison have gone through due process

and as such their rights have been taken away.

[slackmaster]

83. That's exactly what I am saying. All rights exist save those that have been curtailed through...

...due process. The fact that there are conditions put on the exercise of some rights doesn't mean the rights no longer exist.

[jeff47]

86. But a felony conviction that prevents you from getting an explosives license

does not prevent you from using your right to free speech once you have been released.

[slackmaster]

87. In some states a felony conviction prevents you from voting

And everywhere it bars you from many, many kinds of jobs.

[jeff47]

89. Yet you did not have to apply for a license to vote

rights can be taken away with due process. That's the situation you're talking about.

If the activity can be blocked without due process, that's a big giant neon sign saying "this isn't a right".

[slackmaster]

90. I think I've lost the thread here. Besides marriage, which you are wrong about, what are you saying

...is not a right?

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

[apocalypsehow]

60. "You have a right to own it" - A military attack helicopter? No, you don't. Is there any limit

to the silliness that will dribble from the keyboards of our "pro gun progressives"*? Any?


*( )

[midnight]

2. Lindsey Graham's comments are creating a knee jerk reaction that makes one feel unsafe..

[Ian David]

3. ...

WOLVERINES!!!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. Boeing loves you...

This you know.
Their Corporate bottom line
tells you so

Faceless terrorists
to you belong,
The right to kill
It makes you strong.

Yes, Boeing Loves You...
Yes, Boeing Loves You...
Yes, Boeing Loves You...
Their Corporate Bottom Line tells you so.

(Sang to the tune of, Yes Jesus Loves You)

[Buns_of_Fire]

5. My first thought was Peter, Paul, and Mary.

If I had a rocket lancher,
I'd fire it in the morning,
I'd fire it in the evening,
All over this land...

[hobbit709]

15. More like this.

[Javaman]

6. as if they military wouldn't be using their own.

another wanna-be member of the 101st keyboard basement commando brigade.

[Victor_c3]

7. The military won't use them

anytime I needed helicopter support, they never sent it because they were too afraid of one getting shot down...

[Javaman]

8. ! LOL

That reminds me of scene from the TV show M.A.S.H. Where Hawkeye and Trapper need to get a new autoclave and they confront a supply Sargent who has three of them, but won't give them any. His reasoning was if he gave them one he would then only have two. LOL

[Victor_c3]

10. I loved M.A.S.H.

it was too true too many times.

[Separation]

11. And in the hypothetical world were this would happen,

those helicopters, and aircraft would be in the air for 3 days max. The amount of gas and parts that go into keeping these aircraft up would boggle your mind, Ive been in Naval Aviation for 18 years now. These parts and gas are not made on base, they get on base mostly by civilian truck drivers. If they were "deputized" expect to see drivers hanging from bridges.

Makes for interesting talk, but anyone that wants this to happen on either side are sick in the head.

[Javaman]

16. Very true, especially your last line.

Cheers!

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. This ex-Airframer agrees 100% n/t

[geek tragedy]

12. People realize this is satire, right? nt

[loudsue]

17. I understand exactly what you're saying. I've thought those same things.

Just how friggin' far does an "armed militia" go?

[sarisataka]

36. Easy

Just try and stop me

Handful of gravel in the turbine intake, remove the metal shaving collector, there are many ways to stop a helicopter indirectly as well...

[Recursion]

39. You can buy one if you can afford it and pass the background check, but...

... that's not a 2nd amendment issue.

SCOTUS made clear in Miller that the 2nd Amendment covers only such weapons as are commonly in use by infantry. So: rifles, pistols, shotguns, that's pretty much it.

[dbackjon]

65. I'd launch in the morning

I'd launch in the evening
All over this land

[Bake]

73. If you can afford it, jump on out there ...

You'll have to learn to fly it, of course, and that's gonna cost a pile of $$$ too.

But hey, it's only money.



Bake