StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yeehaw! One for the good guys!
finally an american court ruling concerning weapons that makes sense!

I prefer the rail mobile option myself. Imagine the armored train you could build with current technology. Russians already fitted reactive armor to a couple locomotives in Chechnya. Sure it would be inflexible and venerable to five-pound bombs under the tracks but it would be fucking cool.



Know the power of SS-24

Admiral Piett wrote:The Kondensator 2P,the 16 inches caliber soviet atomic gun.

snip

So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.

Captain tycho wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Captain tycho wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 hear the Russians are selling the 47s off like hot cakes. Probably around $500 USD at most. The SKS drives for about $200 USD.

Captain Lennox wrote:

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 hear the Russians are selling the 47s off like hot cakes. Probably around $500 USD at most. The SKS drives for about $200 USD.

400-500 is about right, though some are really awful quality.

Captain Lennox wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Captain Lennox wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Uh, Gates might have $44 billion in total assets... but I think he wants to stay in control of MS.

Microsoft itself has about $40 billion in easy spending cash.

salm: Are you a non-US citizen? If so, you're quite free to not visit if you don't like our laws. I for one want to have the right to protect my property with the deterrant of lethal force.

Because at this point, it would be simply impossible to ensure that nobody in the US had a gun. And if you were to pass a law demanding confiscation of all firearms, you'd just get firearms from law-abiding citizens. Suddenly, the firepower advantage has shifted totally to the criminal element, and the general populace now has no way of defending themselves outside of calling the police, which is a whole lot of good when it takes minutes for them to respond.

salm wrote:Yeehaw! One for the good guys!
finally an american court ruling concerning weapons that makes sense!

I suppose you're a totalitarian, then?

At any rate, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled the exact opposite, and the Supreme Court is certain in the current political climate (and even more certain than certain if a Justice retires before this comes before them, considering the administration), to rule in favour of the 5th Circuit Court's interpetation and throw out the 9th's lunacy.

Or better yet, go even further than the 5th Circuit Court did -- The atmosphere is right for it, with a fully Republican Congress and a Republican Administration, and sections of the Brady Bill expiring in '04. This is just evidence of the gun-control nuts getting desperate as the final and decisive victory of American freedom in this battle to retain our rights draws close.

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.

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.

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 just got an aK47 for 350 US came with a 40 round clip and 10 round clip
It is in 7.62 x 39

Captain Lennox wrote: So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.

28km

Admiral Piett wrote:

Captain Lennox wrote: So whats the range on that thing? Good for cop road blocks.

28km

Owww, that hurts. Though an atomic she;ll aganist those pesky neighbors is good. Howmany they made? Cost?

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.

Agreed though already you have to payed through your nose for the ammo, especially for the .50.

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.

Which oddly excludes tanks but may include some types of tactical nukes such as suitcase nukes and eventually lighter versions of the Davy Crockett.

Captain Lennox wrote: Owww, that hurts. Though an atomic she;ll aganist those pesky neighbors is good. Howmany they made? Cost?

For shorter ranges there is the Oka, a 420mm atomic breech loaded mortar
which is built on the same chassis.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

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.

The exact text:

'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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

There's a guy in California with an entire squadron of working Cobras and another who has a pair of SCUD launchers and missiles along with several hundred other tanks and military vehicles.

For a while the US Army was offering inoperative M60's for little more then the cost of delivery. The same was extended to other goverments, but fully functional of course. A guy in my county took up the offer and now has a M60 in his yard as part of a memorial.

Cool. Where the hell are you? I can hardly think of any country that would allow a private dude to buy an M-60 under any circumstances. It is barely done in the US.

I'm in Pennsylvania just outside of Philadelphia. The tank in question is inoperative, it can move, shoot or even move the turret. Running M60's are pretty rare, I'm not sure if any even exist. But there are a lot of working M48's and swarms of WW2 tanks and things like M113's around. Most are street legal.

The UK also allows for quite a bit of civilian armor ownership, and most are also street legal. Though the best they've sold to civilians is the Chieftain. Several are in private hands. There are also a number of Centurion's about. Then there's WW2 stuff. For a while there was a man in South London who owned and drove a Scorpion light tank! But whets really bizzard is he had it painted PINK!

However ownership in the UK is well below that of America, and almost non-exists ant on the continent. When they went to film A Bridge to Far only six Sherman's could be located, one of which was pulled off a monument and made to run! Most of the vehicles in the movie are fiberglass on Volkswagens, or M109's and Leo1's borrowed from the Dutch military with minimal vismod kits.

In the US you can buy old surplus equipment. I have seen M24 Chaffe's for sale as low as 2000 dollars US. They are almost mint. No ammo for the 75 MM gun.

The most popular old military equipment to buy is the Half tracks(they made so many of them), I have seen those go for 300 to 500 dollars and most just need some fine tuning to be up and running.

In my home town of Boston, they have about 20 Dukw's running around giving tours. And before anyone makes a joke..here is the link to the site that will give you info on them


http://users.belgacom.net/amphib/Dukw-pic.htm