finally an american court ruling concerning weapons that makes sense!

Moderator: Edi
So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.Admiral Piett wrote:The Kondensator 2P,the 16 inches caliber soviet atomic gun.
snip
CVN goes for about 4.5 billion, A Tico costy about a billion in the mid 80's, today more like 1.5 billion with the latest radars and such. Gates might put together a battlegroup but even he would be straining. Overall your average USN CVBG is costs about 20 billion.Captain tycho wrote:Hell, Bill Gates might as well buy an aircraft carrier and a couple of dozen of AEGIS cruisers, not to mention a couple dozen nukes.Manji wrote:What these idiots never realise when they trot out that "It's for the militia" argument is that every single citizen of the United States of America is by defenition a militiaman. The majority of them just don't know it. And certainly these excuses for judges don't.
Hence, every citizen of the United States of America is entitled to assault rifles, grenade launchers, and even battle tanks if they can afford them.
Yes, though he had around $44 Billion 2 years ag. He'll still around half his cash left, though crew costs & supplies could take a hefty dollar too.Sea Skimmer wrote:CVN goes for about 4.5 billion, A Tico costy about a billion in the mid 80's, today more like 1.5 billion with the latest radars and such. Gates might put together a battlegroup but even he would be straining. Overall your average USN CVBG is costs about 20 billion.Captain tycho wrote:Hell, Bill Gates might as well buy an aircraft carrier and a couple of dozen of AEGIS cruisers, not to mention a couple dozen nukes.Manji wrote:What these idiots never realise when they trot out that "It's for the militia" argument is that every single citizen of the United States of America is by defenition a militiaman. The majority of them just don't know it. And certainly these excuses for judges don't.
Hence, every citizen of the United States of America is entitled to assault rifles, grenade launchers, and even battle tanks if they can afford them.
Militaries are expensive things.
Alyeska wrote:Personally I have no problem with private citizens owning things like M2 .50cal machineguns or assault rifles, but only if they are willing to jump through the hoops and shell out the cash.
I hear the Russians are selling the 47s off like hot cakes. Probably around $500 USD at most. The SKS drives for about $200 USD.Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Alyeska wrote:Personally I have no problem with private citizens owning things like M2 .50cal machineguns or assault rifles, but only if they are willing to jump through the hoops and shell out the cash.
How much does a say AK-47 cost?
400-500 is about right, though some are really awful quality.Captain Lennox wrote:I hear the Russians are selling the 47s off like hot cakes. Probably around $500 USD at most. The SKS drives for about $200 USD.Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Alyeska wrote:Personally I have no problem with private citizens owning things like M2 .50cal machineguns or assault rifles, but only if they are willing to jump through the hoops and shell out the cash.
How much does a say AK-47 cost?
I'm under the understanding that he's down to only about 30 billion now. Keeping a battlegroup running costs hundreds of millions a year.Captain Lennox wrote:Yes, though he had around $44 Billion 2 years ag. He'll still around half his cash left, though crew costs & supplies could take a hefty dollar too.Sea Skimmer wrote:CVN goes for about 4.5 billion, A Tico costy about a billion in the mid 80's, today more like 1.5 billion with the latest radars and such. Gates might put together a battlegroup but even he would be straining. Overall your average USN CVBG is costs about 20 billion.Captain tycho wrote:Hell, Bill Gates might as well buy an aircraft carrier and a couple of dozen of AEGIS cruisers, not to mention a couple dozen nukes.
Militaries are expensive things.
Yeah, basically what I meant. maybe it was $38 billion in 2000. I'm not sure. But if it's an investment bringing him back more money then taking in. As in holding countries by hostage. It could be usuable, otherwise pointless.Sea Skimmer wrote:I'm under the understanding that he's down to only about 30 billion now. Keeping a battlegroup running costs hundreds of millions a year.Captain Lennox wrote:Yes, though he had around $44 Billion 2 years ag. He'll still around half his cash left, though crew costs & supplies could take a hefty dollar too.Sea Skimmer wrote: CVN goes for about 4.5 billion, A Tico costy about a billion in the mid 80's, today more like 1.5 billion with the latest radars and such. Gates might put together a battlegroup but even he would be straining. Overall your average USN CVBG is costs about 20 billion.
Militaries are expensive things.
I suppose you're a totalitarian, then?salm wrote:Yeehaw! One for the good guys!
finally an american court ruling concerning weapons that makes sense!
Well, the definition of "arms" in the Second Amendment is properly military weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person. So, say, an M-60 or a SAW would be the upper limit on guns. An RPG-7 or some of the lighter guided MANPADs would also count, and since I doubt halberds and pikes and such were discounted in the 18th century, light mortars, grenades, and so on couldn't be now, either.Alyeska wrote:Personally I have no problem with private citizens owning things like M2 .50cal machineguns or assault rifles, but only if they are willing to jump through the hoops and shell out the cash.
I just got an aK47 for 350 US came with a 40 round clip and 10 round clipGrand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Alyeska wrote:Personally I have no problem with private citizens owning things like M2 .50cal machineguns or assault rifles, but only if they are willing to jump through the hoops and shell out the cash.
How much does a say AK-47 cost?
28kmCaptain Lennox wrote: So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.
Owww, that hurts. Though an atomic she;ll aganist those pesky neighbors is good. Howmany they made? Cost?Admiral Piett wrote:28kmCaptain Lennox wrote: So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.
Which oddly excludes tanks but may include some types of tactical nukes such as suitcase nukes and eventually lighter versions of the Davy Crockett.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Well, the definition of "arms" in the Second Amendment is properly military weapons that can be carried and operated by a single person. So, say, an M-60 or a SAW would be the upper limit on guns. An RPG-7 or some of the lighter guided MANPADs would also count, and since I doubt halberds and pikes and such were discounted in the 18th century, light mortars, grenades, and so on couldn't be now, either.
Basically, if you can heft it all by yourself, set it up by yourself, and shoot it by yourself, and it is designed for military use, you should be able to walk into a store and buy it, no questions asked. That's what the Second Amendment guarantees. Weapons not designed for military use would be subject to regulation by the individual states.
For shorter ranges there is the Oka, a 420mm atomic breech loaded mortarCaptain Lennox wrote: Owww, that hurts. Though an atomic she;ll aganist those pesky neighbors is good. Howmany they made? Cost?
Or, it could mean that a well-regulated Militia is a prerequisite to having arms. This is the interpretation the California Supreme Court has used. And I think it's the smart one. This way certain guns, which have to legal purpose (civilian or military) can be banned. Also, the government can enforce certain limitation before gun ownership, like the ability to use a gun safely. Not currently stalking anyone. Not be fucking nuts.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The exact text:C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
It doesn't say Militia, it says well organized militia (or something to that effect, I don't feel like looking up the exact quote.) Therefore, if you don't know you're in a militia, then it's not well organized enough for constitutional protection.
'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
From an 18th century (grammatical) perspective, considering the grammatical structure of the text, the thrust of the sentence is basically that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, as an armed populace is a requisite to the formation of a militia necessary for the defence of the State. The well-regulated portion would apply only to the Militia. That would have been the intent of those composing the sentence.
There main armament must be disabled as well in the case of tanks, though you can mount machine guns. In the case of military aircraft or helicopters any internal weapons and all hard points must be removed.Coyote wrote:Bear in mind that the "AK-47" one can get over the counter in the United States is not, repeat not, repeat NOT fully automatic (ie, a "machine gun"). Despite the news media's hype and screeching, it is extremely difficult for someone to get a fully-automatic rifle in a gun store in the US.
And I'm not suire about the Second's stance on explosives. I heard one person explain that an explosion, by its nature, is uncontrollable (you don't know who it'll kill/injure) and this random nature means that it is not considered a proper militia personal weapons (so suitace nukes, grenades, etc are out). On the other hand, most of the cannons and the entire Navy used in the Revolution was from private hands.
And I know that people are allowed to own tanks and fighter aircraft as well as RPGs and full-auto rifles and machineguns, but only after extensive background checks and TONS of money are paid...