Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alex C wrote:
Yup.

That is, quite honestly, insane.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Yup.

That is, quite honestly, insane.

Expected that answer.

If someone who can afford it wants it, sure. If they do something stupid with it then appropriate criminal charges can be filed.

Call me insane til you're blue in the face, I don't give a feth. Just stating my opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Yes.

So you think anyone who wants one should be able to own artillery, without any licensing/safety inspections/etc to get in their way?

There are people that own artillery pieces.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Yes.

So you think anyone who wants one should be able to own artillery, without any licensing/safety inspections/etc to get in their way?

There are people that own artillery pieces.

Now don't let facts get in the way of things.

We're all insane, remember?

Besides, the people that own them have given lots of money and paperwork to the government, so they couldn't possibly do anything bad with the big toys could they?

We talking black powder cannons? Hell Mythbusters went through the loop firing one. In like a safety hard area and the cannonball landed in someone lawn

As for modern field piece. No way. Someone might get a 105mm piece but not the newer version of the M119. Might get a 75mm pack howizter but there be no firing pin in it. No t only that but you will not get on a average buy a Gunner sight or the elevation/quadrant bubbles pieces.

Now the shell cartridge cannot be brought. Nor the primer for the shell. Guess one could make the powder bags 1-7. Fuses are a controlled sensitive items but...well there's a lot involve with a artillery piece.
Have a better chance on getting a recoiless cannon like the one they use to set off avalanches

 Alex C wrote:
If they do something stupid with it then appropriate criminal charges can be filed.

I'm sure that will be a lot of consolation to the families of the people they killed because they just had to have the biggest gun in the neighborhood. Thankfully you are part of a tiny minority and most people understand the need to prevent incredibly dangerous situations before they get people killed, and not just file criminal charges after it's too late.

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are people that own artillery pieces.

Note the key point of that question: without restrictions. It's possible for civilians to own artillery, even functioning artillery, if they are willing to get the appropriate licenses. But this is, and should be, an exceptional case. We should not have a situation where artillery has the same lack of restrictions as a .22 rifle.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
If they do something stupid with it then appropriate criminal charges can be filed.

I'm sure that will be a lot of consolation to the families of the people they killed because they just had to have the biggest gun in the neighborhood. Thankfully you are part of a tiny minority and most people understand the need to prevent incredibly dangerous situations before they get people killed, and not just file criminal charges after it's too late.

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are people that own artillery pieces.

Note the key point of that question: without restrictions. It's possible for civilians to own artillery, even functioning artillery, if they are willing to get the appropriate licenses. But this is, and should be, an exceptional case. We should not have a situation where artillery has the same lack of restrictions as a .22 rifle.

Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.
But restrictions on Constitutional rights? No.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.

Alex C is claiming that artillery is protected by the second amendment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.

Alex C is claiming that artillery is protected by the second amendment.

I'm in favor, but I suppose it's debatable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.

Alex C is claiming that artillery is protected by the second amendment.

It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected, but I'm obviously in the minority, which is fine.

Of course, you can't "bear" a cannon, so I can see where such things are certainly up for debate.

Like I said, just my opinion.

 Alex C wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Well, seeing how artillery isn't a personal firearm and isn't protected by the 2nd, sure.

Alex C is claiming that artillery is protected by the second amendment.

It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected, but I'm obviously in the minority, which is fine.

Of course, you can't "bear" a cannon, so I can see where such things are certainly up for debate.

Like I said, just my opinion.

Um... you're allowed a black powder cannon in most states w/o licensing.

 Alex C wrote:
It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected

An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected

An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?

Not a firearm. Not covered.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected

An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?

The anti's line of argument is so predictable...

I think in the case of WMD there absolutely needs to be a line drawn to make them inaccessible.

Yes, the common "Would you allow private ownership of nukes? No? Aha! Gotcha!" argument wins yet again.

Aside from WMD though, I err on the side of liberty.

I think wanting to restrict gun ownership is insane.

Wow, that was easy. Don't try to understand the other side's point of view and just call them insane. It makes believing one to always be right so much easier.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
It's a form of armament, so I think it should be protected

An ICBM with nuclear warheads is also a form of armament. Do you honestly think that, in the unlikely event that technology changes somehow to make it possible for a civilian to obtain one, that the right to have nuclear ICBMs should be protected and buying one should be no more difficult than buying a .22 rifle from your local walmart?

Not a firearm. Not covered.

'
Incorrect, the term "arms" in the second amendment refers to all arms, not just firearms. People forget that a lot. It's a perfect example how out constitutional rights are restricted everyday for concerns about public safety.

We're rehashing age old arguments and getting ruder. This thread has reached its inevitable conclusion.