Justification for owning?

[Excalibur]

So a recent debate I had with one of my Marine friends. He’s a combat vet, and of course he’s had experienced with the bigger guns that go boom, Mk 19, 203s, etc. The discussion came up where I said that if I wanted to own a flash bang grenade, I should without permission from the federal government. He aggressively disagree with me on that, citing certain things should be kept out of the public hands in fear of them falling into the wrong hands or misused, but I said wouldn’t that apply to all arms? To which he replied that “you can’t justify the reason why you should have a grenade let alone a 203, cannons, etc.”

To which I reply that you as an individual don’t need to justify possession of anything to anyone unless you actually commit a crime with it and the severity of punishment should be based on what you’ve done not what you COULD do and the act of restricting said ability to have something, ANYTHING based on fear of getting out of hand is a slippery slope. My friend stands firm and un-ironically stated that these things should only belong in the hands of trained people (military/police) and not civilians because he’s seen the damage they cause from using them. Which to me and a lot of us is the very definition of the second amendment.
He has no problems with the stupid barrel lengths, suppressors, machine guns but when it comes to a man wanting to have a 203 and even flash bang grenades, that’s where he draws the line…between us civilians and the government that can have them. Like I said, he says this with a straight face and I wonder does he understand what he’s actually talking about.

I don’t know, what’s everyone else’s thoughts on this?

 

[AngryRooster]

I'm a veteran, I've been trained with them, have 2 combat tours: Panama & Desert Shield/Storm. That was quite a while ago. I fit his criteria. Ask him if I should be permitted to have them, then ask him why or why not.



Training isn't everything. NYPD is trained, yet they have mishaps all the time.

 

[avboiler11]

I think to some people there's a difference between arms and ordnance.

 

[Excalibur]

I'm a veteran, I've been trained with them, have 2 combat tours: Panama & Desert Shield/Storm. That was quite a while ago. I fit his criteria. Ask him if I should be permitted to have them, then ask him why or why not.



Training isn't everything. NYPD is trained, yet they have mishaps all the time.

Like I said. He said all this without seeing the irony of his train of thought. Also he said he can't justify to himself why he should have them either. So I bet he'll say the same thing to you as well. Why would anyone in the civilian world need something that can cause destruction on a mass scale. He has no problems with full auto guns but if I want a flash grenade for my sole purpose of riot control. Say the unlikely event that a mob attacks me...I'd like to have a grenade of some sort...non lethal of course. I want to kick them while they're down.

I think to some people there's a difference between arms and ordnance.

They're the same thing

 

[avboiler11]

They're the same thing

Right or wrong, Websters-approved or not, there are people out there who draw a line at destructive devices.

 

[AngryRooster]

I can see his point with certain things. The general populace has no need for NBC weapons, or things that can level the next county over. Individual arms can be a different story though. I've got a few hundred acres and a 203 would really help with the coyote problem. On the other hand, we read all the time about accidents with firearms. Imagine the outcry the first time someone leaves their M67 in a sock and their kids friend finds it. Imagine the NFA wait times.....

 

[Excalibur]

I think my argument isn't on the actual possession of said weapons of destruction like grenades, but the mindset people put in place that says we can't have it because you can't be trusted with it. I made a point that during the founding of America, many private citizens owned cannons and even some had full on warships. It's the idea that a man should be allowed to own what he wants as long as his intentions are above board but the moment he commits a crime with said property, it does not matter if he had the right to own it nor would it change the very natural of the crime. That same justification of "if he wasn't able to own it, it would have prevented needless death" has been scaled back for all arms. It's very easy for a government to use that justification to go from you can't have cannons to you can't have full auto weapons, to you can't have guns period.

That's what I am arguing against.





I mean, for those in the community that has NFA weapons, has there ever been a recorded accident or crime using said weapon? The very limited number of actual grenades and launchers in private hands...and not a single crime ever committed.

 

[Clarity]

Ricin or VX, etc. should not be in the hands of anyone that wants to possess them. There are too many knuckleheads out there, and the potential for destruction is too great. There is no constitutional right to possess poison gas, so laws have been made forbidding it. As for whether arms = ordinance, I don't believe they are the same. You need a permit and training to use explosives to bring down a building, and rightfully so, just as you need a license and training to drive a big rig or wire a house. Why should you need have neither to own a grenade?

 

[halfmileharry]

I am in agreement with your buddy.
I was proficient with the M79 and M72, grenades, and other "efficient and effective" weapon systems that are restricted. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur but these old weapon types are extremely unforgiving on ****ups.
There's a good reason for the restrictions.
Constitutional rights or not.... MOST people have ZERO business with them.
I'm betting you'd be safer living in a home full of Cobras.
Would I like to have a few stashed away? You betch your ass I would but I don't want anyone else having them.

 

[lazarus0213]

Using your friends logic No one would need a car that makes more than a few horsepower , or a motorcycle that has the abilty to go 180mph. If I have not displayed or given any good reason why I shouldnt have something there should be no reason why I shouldnt be allowed. Even saying that bothers me , being allowed. I never agreed to these rules that govern my, I was born into them and therefore automatically thought I was bound by them. There should be a freedom to own whatever there is, if it gets into the wrong hands or is done something with it that should not have been then punish the people or peoples responsible, not everyone that MIGHT.

 

[Excalibur]

I made the same argument with cannons and how private citizens have them 200 years ago

 

[avboiler11]

Using your friends logic No one would need a car that makes more than a few horsepower , or a motorcycle that has the abilty to go 180mph.

A better automotive analogy, IMO, is the difference between street legal and not street-legal.

Why aren't race cars street legal? Because of the risk they pose to society...and that same risk equation drives firearm policy to this day.

Speaking for myself only:

I believe the societal risk from suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns is between insignificant and nonexistant, and therefore those types of weapons should not be bound under NFA. I don't personally have a problem with machine guns being under NFA due to their societal risk...but I do think the Hughes Amendment should disappear and newly manufactured machine guns should be available to those willing to endure the NFA process. Hell, make the machine gun tax increase tenfold to $2k - it'd still be a LOT cheaper as available supply would increase dramatically overnight. Destructive devices? I believe the societal risk requires them to remain in the realm of the NFA.

Others might disagree with some or all of that...and that's fine.

 

[Excalibur]

I do agree to a point about heavy ordnance like grenades, but what about lighter stuff? If there is such a thing? Tear gas grenades? Flash bangs?

 

[lazarus0213]

I do agree to a point about heavy ordnance like grenades, but what about lighter stuff? If there is such a thing? Tear gas grenades? Flash bangs?

see I guess thats a subjective thing. I dont consider grenades HEAVY ordnance

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's very easy for a government to use that justification to go from you can't have cannons to you can't have full auto weapons, to you can't have guns period.

That's what I am arguing against.

You probably don't want your neighbor to have access to weaponized Anthrax because even if he's a cool guy with no evil intent he's also probably not equipped or trained to handle biological weapons that could decimate your neighborhood if he made an oopsy. Yet, you're cool with him owning an M-16. Why is it difficult to imagine that you can't ban one without banning the other? That's the issue with the slippery slope argument. The simple truth is reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn between the safety of the community and personal freedom, but there will always be a line.

 

[Excalibur]

But I'm not talking about anthrax. I'm talking about grenades

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But I'm not talking about anthrax. I'm talking about grenades

Right. The point is you do draw a line, unless you're cool with your neighbor's anthrax lab. Why is it so upsetting your friend's line is drawn prior to "grenade" and why is that some inevitable assault on firearms ownership?

 

[Leadeye]

A decent chemist can make really bad stuff with common items if they are patient, people accept the risk every day that you can make toxic gas with bleach and toilet bowl cleaner.

 

[jbombelli]

As far as I'm concerned your friend is wrong. I don't care how much military experience he has, he's wrong. We either have the ability to fight or we don't. He thinks we shouldn't.

Ask him what he thinks about flamethrowers. Then tell him they're not regulated at all.

 

[JettaKnight]

Let me look at this from another angle - what would you do with these things?

I don't think you can just go out behind your house and lob some grenades; and no gun range is going to let you toss off a couple of flashbangs. Outside, you can get the same effect from tannerite.

Tear gas? You get the same effect from a couple of smoke bombs.

And there's no way you argue this from a self-defense angle, so that's out.

So if you cannot safely use it, and it's not really fun to operate it - then what's the point of owning it? SHTF? Bragging rights? Toy for the cat?


Now flamethrowers...