You Don't Get To Own A Cannon... Maybe We Need To Re-Frame Gun Control... To Arms Control...

[WillyT]

Amendment II

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

I went to a pre-wake at a VFW Post for a buddy dying of cancer. It was a hoot, and yet he's been gone for a couple of years now.

Out front of the VFW Post was a cannon off of a WWII Navy vessel. There were no shells, they had taken all the firing mechanisms out, and they had filled the barrel with concrete. They were allowed to own it, keep it, display it, under certain conditions... also know as regulations.

There's plenty of this type of weaponry... displayed across this country for all sorts of reasons... totally inoperable.

And there's a reason for that...

When going to high-school some of the bad-asses had switch-blades and stiletto's... illegal.

Same with black-jacks and brass-knuckles. Also illegal.

And you don't get to own a fully functioning Thompson Sub-Machine Gun... also known as a Tommy-Gun.

Not legally... Not without all sorts of registration forms filled out, and blessings given. By the government.

And you don't get to own a Bazooka... now called a rocket launcher...

Or a flame-thrower... or a Abrams/M1 Tank... Or Mortar... and any number of "Arms".

The public is not supposed to have access to these devices, for obvious reasons.

If you are a museum, or a VFW Post, you may be able to acquire some of these as long as you follow the registration and dis-arming regulations.

AND NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO OWN A NUKE... for obvious reasons.

So... maybe it's come time to stop arguing GUN CONTROL... And start framing it as ARMS CONTROL.

The 2nd Amendment... seems to suggest that's where the fight should take place.

And if you are a responsible arms owner... wouldn't you WANT to register your responsible behavior ???

[Duckhunter935]

1. many people own tanks and

artillery pieces. Not to mention cannons.

[WillyT]

2. Fully Armed And Operational ???

And what kinds of REGULATIONS did they have to agree to, to do so ???

[Duckhunter935]

4. Yep

As long as they pay the fees and pass the feds checks

[WillyT]

5. My Point Exactly... Fees And Regulations Should Apply To ALL Armements...

[Duckhunter935]

7. They do

Especially the regulations part, thousands actually.

[onehandle]

20. Antisocial crazy fuckers. Ain't they?

Am I wrong? Or should we all have have operational tanks and artillery in our yards?

How much C4 should I have stockpiled?

Is a backpack nuke my right?

If I invent a tractor beam, which I can use to draw the Sun into my neighbor's home, if I feel threatened, am I in the right, for Second Amendment Remedies reasons?

Just wondering.

[Duckhunter935]

21. I think the rules and regulations are about right

we just need to work on getting the correct and accurate information into the current NICS system in a timely fashion. I have no issues with private collectors and groups owning tanks and artillery under current federal and state laws. I have never heard of one of those used for criminal means.

[sarisataka]

25. Antisocial or eliteist?

Paul Allen donates $500,000 to gun initiative

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has donated $500,000 to a campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales in Washington state.

His Aug. 11 donation to Initiative 594 was made public when it posted on the state's Public Disclosure Commission website Monday afternoon. Campaign manager Zach Silk told The Associated Press that the campaign was grateful for Allen's support.

"He has always been the type of leader who is willing to take on challenging issues and work with people to solve them," Silk wrote in an email.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Paul-Allen-gives-500K-to-expand-background-checks-271772901.html

Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen sues over Nazi tank he says he bought

Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen has seen his share of court fights, what with a patent war he launched a few years ago against pretty much all of Silicon Valley, and other high-profile business battles.

But few lawsuits have been like the one filed on the billionaire's behalf Wednesday in San Mateo County Superior Court. That legal action, complete with a temporary restraining order, is not about software, but rather concerns the hardest of hardware — a 70-year-old German tank known as the Panzer IV that weighs 27.6 tons.


The Panzer IV tank was built by the Germans in 1944, sold to Syria in the 1950s and captured during the Six-Day War by Israel, which used it for training. It eventually became part of the Littlefield Collection. (Littlefield Collection)
Allen owns a lot of things. The Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks. The NBA's Portland Trail Blazers. A chunk of the Seattle Sounders soccer franchise. He founded the Allen Institute for Brain Science. He has given away more than $1.8 billion. And there's a lot more left over.

Now, he says, he spent $2.5 million on the Panzer IV, a choice bit of history that he bought in July to add to his museum of military memorabilia housed in his Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, Wash.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-paul-allen-panzer-20140912-story.html

So guns bad, tanks good?
And how are people who collect Nazi memorabilia described?

[Duckhunter935]

26. it is a little hypocritical

Kind of like Senator Dianne Feinstein, she can conceal carry but not the masses,

[CTyankee]

34. now, now, tell the whole truth...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/dianne-feinstein-guns_n_3010058.html

This was so easy to check out on the google...

you really should keep up, duck...just saying...

[Duckhunter935]

37. I know that

but when she felt threatened she got one and carried a weapon and now she would like to deny the option of their preferred firearm and concealed carry to others that feel threatened. How nice she wants to make the decision for others.

[CTyankee]

39. she has her reasons, which I know you don't agree with, but she had a change of heart.

She is not being hypocritical. She feels sincerely that concealed carry is not the way to go. I was telling the rest of the story because I didn't want people to get the impression that she is still feeling that way.

[Duckhunter935]

43. and she is forcing her reasons on others

I guess their reasons do not count right? I guess she is against the choice for the little people.

[CTyankee]

48. plenty of those you call "little people" feel the same way she does.

You cannot simply appropriate to your side of the argument a whole swath of people out there who may just agree with her and not with you. Not everyone feels deprived of a means to protect themselves. There are those of us who feel the same way about the NRA.

[Duckhunter935]

49. and yet she wants

to deny other people who think differently their rights. How nice of her to jam her views on them. If she does not want to own a weapon, more power to her. I am not forcing her or anyone to own one. But she is forcing people with a different view to abide by her views. Again, I say how nice of her to restrict others choices of a legal product.

[CTyankee]

52. You will not get anywhere by simply trying to make her look outside the mainstream...

plenty of us little people want to see better and more effective gun control as a matter of public safety. Some of the gun rhetoric frightens us as we strive for safety for ourselves and our families in the public square. I don't want drunk drivers on the roads or wild shootouts in our communities.

[Duckhunter935]

54. It is because she is

that is why she fails every time. She might have actually done some good with UBC if she just stuck to that but no she did not. She had to over reach and start with the cosmetic feature bans again. She then got slapped down again by the vast majority that disagreed with her trying to force that through.

[CTyankee]

56. so she took a stand based on her own conscience...such stands are often not successful

even in the lifetimes of those taking those stands...

[Duckhunter935]

58. and I am glad

There are much better ways to cut down on firearms deaths than cosmetic feature bans.

[CTyankee]

60. She may not agree with you on the term "cosmetic."

[Duckhunter935]

63. her right

but I know the function of the weapons, and the banned and legal ones function exactly the same. Those evil bayonet lugs and pistol grips.

[oneshooter]

18. 90mm anti tank gun

[Duckhunter935]

22. pretty cool, thanks

[jmowreader]

28. Someone didn't stake his trails down...

[Duckhunter935]

38. looks that way

[CTyankee]

3. OMG, thank you! My first belly laugh of the day!

[beevul]

11. Why are you laughing? What that poster said is the truth.

People do own, legally, all those things.

[Duckhunter935]

23. I know

I hope some here will be educated with some facts.

[CTyankee]

29. oh, so sorry, had to stop laughing to respond...

why of course, I am sure a tank is just what someone (somewhere, I guess) wants to own. It must be a treasure. Hard choices I guess..."hmm, do I buy that tank? It's a beaut but..."

Of course, there is a place for such armaments of war. Along with the cannon, can be donated to a historic battlefield or a museum. No problem there...and prolly a tax deduction...I'll have to ask my accountant next time he does our taxes...

[Duckhunter935]

40. one of the great private tank collections

I am glad these people have the money and drive to find and restore these great museum pieces. I am also glad they are indeed operational and not just painted static displays.

[CTyankee]

47. Actually, I can see how people can be revulsed at the sight of such mechanisms of death.

They are scary. Let people see how ugly and awful they are, but keep them from being used against us...

[Duckhunter935]

50. and other people are not

We have to remember our history, good and bad.

[CTyankee]

55. It's good to remember all that violence and strive for better for our country.

I get no "thrill" from seeing that tank rolling along. Symbols of violent war do not inspire, thrill or excite me. They instill in me a somber warning of what happens when there is a war. Of course, we were lucky here in the U.S. We did not have our cities bombed, shelled and burned during the second world conflagration. We were lucky but we should remember those in Europe who stood in the rubble of total devastation and starved and died as a result. I feel unutterable sadness...

[Duckhunter935]

59. good for you

[Logical]

6. Willy, even a majority of Dems in the senate will not favor removing guns from the hands.....

of the public.

It is a losing topic.

I would have no issue registering my gun.

But you think that would of stopped this weeks shooting? No it would not of.

Actually most mass shooters got their gun legally.

[Duckhunter935]

8. That's where the fail is

When you ask them for a new law that would stop these murders. The laws they point out like more background checks, AWB, magazine limits should have made absolutely no difference in a majority of these murders.

[WillyT]

9. Agreed... So Why Not Do Registrations/Background Checks... Because We Are Politically Afraid...

And shame on us all.

The gun bullies win... over and over.

[Shamash]

41. WTF?

In effect, you just said "I agree that the laws wouldn't have done anything, so why not pass them"?

Obviously, you have no clue how brain-dead that sounds. If that was not what you meant, I suggest you go back and edit the comment.

[beevul]

10. "Flame throwers" are considered agricultural implements, believe it or not.

"Flame throwers" are considered agricultural implements, believe it or not.

However...

And if you are a responsible arms owner... wouldn't you WANT to register your responsible behavior ???

'If you are a responsible speaker, wouldn't you WANT to register your responsible speech?'

Doesn't sound so good when applied to other things, does it.

[MH1]

42. You are saying "guns = speech"? Excuse me, "arms = speech"?

As in letting your gun do your talking?


W.T.F.

[Duckhunter935]

51. he is saying they are both rights

but I am sure you know that

[MH1]

61. That they are both rights is irrelevant

and he didn't say that is what he meant, that "registering" for one right should mean you have to "register" for all other rights.

That argument makes no sense and is just a distraction from the question of the pros and cons of requiring registration of guns, and restrictions on gun ownership such as licensing. There are both pros and cons to each of those proposals, but trying to say "this is bad because this other thing is bad" is not a relevant argument.

[Duckhunter935]

64. thinking like that is how

we end up with free speech zones.

[MH1]

65. It's irrelevant to the gun discussion, but I'm curious how you get from my statement to

"free speech zones".

If you insist on conflating the two, however, I will point out that all commercial speech is essentially "registered", except for a small number of people who have the knowledge and will to enforce strong anonymity controls. (Commercial speech = anything published, including what I write on a website like DU.) If I am speaking in the park to another person and happen to express a highly negative opinion of the current government, I'm not at risk of having the police come to my house and take me away to prison for years. THAT is what free speech means at its practical essence in this country. (I am, however, at risk of the local code enforcement guys taking a ruler to my grass height more frequently and slapping me with a fine a lot quicker than they would if I were buddies with my commissioner.)

3-D printing brings in a whole new dimension to the gun control argument, because now it is possible for a person to build their own gun from non-controlled (and probably non-controllable) material. But outside of that - still only practical for a relatively small number of people - gun ownership is a commercial activity (the gun was at some time purchased and has monetary value). So it's not a far stretch to maintain records on purchases and transfers. Just as the residue of my internet activity does not in itself constrain my subsequent activity on the internet, neither does registration of gun ownership in itself constrain my activity or future purchases. What it does, is link my name to it and make me responsible for it.

[Duckhunter935]

66. Who said commercial?

Both are individual rights that are under attack constantly.

[MH1]

68. Gun ownership is a commercial activity.

Speech is not necessarily, although it tends to be in this modern age.

In any case they are two completely different things. Domestic cats and mosquitoes are both members of the animal kingdom. Doesn't mean they should both be treated the same, and any analogy implying such, is completely nonsensical.

[Duckhunter935]

69. no, sorry

gun sales might be but not ownership.

[flying_fish]

12. You can literally own everything you listed except the nuke,

no back ground check required if you use a trust, all for a $200 tax stamp and about a 90 day wait. Also flame throwers are not regulated in anyway

[WillyT]

13. So... If I Want To Own A Bazooka, Or A Mortar... Do I Get The Shells That Cause Destruction ???

And Do I have to sign in to own those shells... or said Bazooka ???

What GOVERNMENT AGENCY makes this OK.

And what contracts do I have to agree too ?



Ya see... ALL THAT... is regulation.

[flying_fish]

14. You have to register each shell as a destructive device and get a $200 stanp for each,

They are pretty hard to get now days because no manufactures will sell them directly to the public. They are out there but pretty rare and are mainly kept as a collection piece

[beevul]

15. No government agency "makes it ok".

No government agency "makes it ok".

Theoretically, under our system of government, (essentially) government can not make anything "ok".

They can only restrict it.

All things are allowed, except that which has been forbidden by due process of law.

[oneshooter]

19. One of my clients has a Stuart light Tank with a live 37mm main gun.

He also has a M3-16 half track with a four gun turret that has four live M2's in it. Each magazine holds 1000 rounds of .50cal. ammo.

I work on and restore WW2 armor as a very profitable sideline.

[Duckhunter935]

24. I would love to do that

Bet it is fun to see your hard work pay off in the end.

[oneshooter]

30. Yea, it does have its moments.

Of course being waist deep on 60 year old oil and grease kinda makes up for it.

[Lulu Belle]

32. Quad .50!! Awesome!!!

N/T

[oneshooter]

33. Here is one on display, the turret is powered by its own APU

And the gunner is sitting between the guns. Normally a small trailer containing a dozen spare mags is pulled for reloads.

[pintobean]

45. A good friend of mine drove one of those onto Omaha Beach

on D-Day. He says that was the scariest part of the war for him. He wasn't so concerned about incoming fire as much as driving into a hole and drowning. He was very aware of the dangers created by our pre-invasion naval bombardment, and they all had a shit ton of equipment strapped on.

[Kurska]

16. "And if you are a responsible arms owner... wouldn't you WANT to register your responsible behavior"

No actually I don't, for the very reason that there exists people who clearly want nothing more than strip guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Confiscation is only realistic with registration, if they weren't so many people howling for confiscation, I'd be fine with registration.

[ileus]

17. Generally speaking I don't need a cannon to protect the family.

Good news is for most Conceal Carry my LCP or Shield fit the bill pretty good.

For home defense I feel that my P-09 and an AR will get the job done to save/protect the family.


Actually for most of the items on your list, if you have enough 200 buck tax stamps and plenty of dough you can own them.


Hell flame throwers are legal already in most states.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/22/introducing-the-terrifying-personal-flamethrower-that-is-apparently-legal-in-48-states/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/handheld-flamethrower-xm-42_n_6909706.html

[Man from Pickens]

27. Disarmament needs to start with the government

you'll never get people to give up their personal defense weapons in the context of a government which keeps deploying more and more extreme military equipment into domestic "police" (read: occupation) work

if even the law thinks it's so dangerous out there that they need MRAPs and automatic weapons, who is going to feel safe enough to voluntarily go unarmed?

[Recursion]

31. Except for the nuke you can own all of those (nt)

[harrose]

35. You Want To Take Away My Canon????

They'll never pry my Canon from my hands. I will shoot with it and damn any law that says to the contrary. I proudly shoot with my Canon. Sometimes after I shoot with it, I cut off people's heads, or hang them. Sometimes I even frame them.

Take my Canon away? Never!

[the band leader]

36. Actually, you do get to have a flamethrower. The Government doesn't however.

[dawg]

44. Great! Then only the pirates will have them.

Is that what you want?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Arms control agreements exist between governments. And before you suggest it

No, the US government cannot consign away the rights of the people through agreements with foreign governments.

[Shamash]

53. For reference, you can own cannon without even a permit

The laws regarding antique weapons exempt certain types of cannon manufactured up to 1898 to be owned with no regulation whatsoever. And for those not familiar with the technology, this includes things like this:



We're not talking about muzzle-loading Civil War cannons here. Explosive shells would be "destructive devices" and subject to strict regulation, but firing solid shot or grapeshot (like a giant shotgun shell) is just fine. The relevant part of the law is that it cannot fire fixed ammunition and it must have be made before 1898 (or I believe be a replica of such a design), and it cannot be converted to fire fixed ammunition. An artillery piece as shown above would load the projectile at the back of the weapon, then a bag of powder, the breech would be closed and then it would be fired. This could be repeated several times per minute.

Oh, and to address the OP's final question, isn't that in the form of "if you have nothing to hide then why would you mind us opening your mail?"

[Duckhunter935]

57. cool

[rock]

62. Of course we can own fully functioning tanks under certain conditions

Because, you know, target practice.

[MineralMan]

67. Your Basic Premise is Not Correct

You CAN own a cannon. In fact, here's the website of one of the best-known cannon manufacturers. You can see the list of working, firing cannons available from this website:

http://steencannons.com/

There are other manufacturers as well.

Want to see people firing cannons, perfectly legally? Go here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=firing+cannon

[Sancho]

70. I sort of disagree with "gun/arms control", I think we need people control...

keep whatever kinds of guns you want, as long as dangerous people cannot easily possess guns.