Isn't the central point of the 2nd amendment that we should be able to defend ourselves against a tyranical government? A 9mm isn't going to do much against a US Army tank.
2007-12-06 09:51:08 · 16 answers · asked by john_in_dc 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to revolt so the right of the people to keep and bear arms has to be balanced against the right of the people to be secure.
Since the only legitimate use for a stinger missile, or other weapons, is defense of the nation therefore the government restricts personal ownership of specific weapons systems.
What most people do not understand is that the militia of the United States is comprised of all able bodied men between 17 and 45 as well as all women who are serving in the national guard or reserves.
This is a part of the United States code, the Federal law which regulates the militia of the United States.
A tank is not that hard to disable. One of the problems with a high technology military force is that it requires substantial logistical services. Tanks and other military systems can be disabled by disrupting the logistical services which support these systems.
2007-12-06 10:04:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stingers are officially a crew-serviced weapon (2 men) though, in a pinch, one man can fire it
Since the 2nd Amendment is about the individual person's weapon, that he carries on or about his person, it might be a stretch to say that Stingers fall explicitly under this definition
2007-12-06 18:06:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I agree that we should be armed against a tyranical government but I will be happy to just be able to stop this government from taking our right to bare arms period. I see that with every damb school/mall shooting the politicians put more restrictions on gun ownership. Police state is near.
2007-12-06 17:55:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
It may not work against a tank but it will sure as hell take out the guy guarding the stingers so I can take care of the tank.
2007-12-06 18:00:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you miss the point. We should be able to defend ourselves against anyone who would take away our rights. Also it has been shown again and again that robbing law abiding citizens of their second amendment rights does not affect crime rates. BTW I am a fan of the entire Constitution not just the second amendment.
2007-12-06 17:58:04 · answer #5 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
That would be quite comical... You'll be walking down the sidewalk and there would be a man with an RPG and an AK-47 that would say "What? I need it to defend myself from the government!" ...it would be like going to Argentina.
2007-12-06 18:15:45 · answer #6 · answered by Emperor Penguin 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only for larger game, like moose or grizzly bear.
Or low-flying pterodactyls, Stingers would be handy for those.
But definitely not for small game like squirrels and such, home defense would be iffy as well.
2007-12-06 17:56:44 · answer #7 · answered by Jim P 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think satellite imaging a stinger missile in your backyard would make tyrannical governments suspicious of you first.
2007-12-06 17:55:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should, 2nd amendment refers to a well regulated militia: To me, that says keep those Stingers well greased!
2007-12-06 17:56:21 · answer #9 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If this is an attempt to undermine our second amendment, is not working, we still shall be entitled to defend ourselves.
2007-12-06 17:59:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋