PDA

View Full Version : Citizens with f-18s?


CalCop
11-09-2008, 11:25 AM
I have been thinking lately, and am conflicted on this matter...the founding fathers clearly intended for each citizen to have his own gun in his own closet, and when necessary to come together with other citizens to form the "militia." The fathers were clearly against a standing army of any kind, except in times of war. Reading the book, "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, has convinced me that the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens 'outgun' the government...so that when the government becomes oppressive, the people could threaten with the militia if necessary. But, how feasible is that today? Now that we have a standing army with F-18s, tanks, and nukes...how feasible is it for the citizenry to outgun the government? Aren't there whackos out there who should not own nukes? But, at the same time, shouldn't the citizens outgun the government? What are your thoughts?

deleted by PC police
11-09-2008, 11:29 AM
I have been thinking lately, and am conflicted on this matter...the founding fathers clearly intended for each citizen to have his own gun in his own closet, and when necessary to come together with other citizens to form the "militia." The fathers were clearly against a standing army of any kind, except in times of war. Reading the book, "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, has convinced me that the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens 'outgun' the government...so that when the government becomes oppressive, the people could threaten with the militia if necessary. But, how feasible is that today? Now that we have a standing army with F-18s, tanks, and nukes...how feasible is it for the citizenry to outgun the government? Aren't there whackos out there who should not own nukes? But, at the same time, shouldn't the citizens outgun the government? What are your thoughts?

If i'm not mistaken it's unconstitutional for the government to use the military against the people so that is one reason we don't need those things, the other reason is that the military is made up of good folks like us, most of wich would not follow an order to attack civilians armed or not.

sorensen440
11-09-2008, 11:34 AM
following orders is one thing but I dont believe the bulk of the military would fire on US citezens

MT1
11-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Arms would pertain to those weapons that could be carried on one's person. But at the same time, there were private merchantmen ships that could outgun the navy vessels of the time, so your' idea does create thought...only the ultra rich could afford one.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 11:38 AM
If i'm not mistaken it's unconstitutional for the government to use the military against the people Hmmm...I'll have to look into that...not familiar with that.

Suvorov
11-09-2008, 11:41 AM
If you got the money to buy, support, and arm an F-18, then you probably got the enough money that you already have enough political influence you don't need them. Same goes for M1 MBTs, Aircraft Carriers, Guided Missle Frigates, and Bradley Fighting vehicles. As far as the old stuff goes, plenty of people have old military aircraft and armored fighting vehicles.

As far as being armed with what amounts to light infantry weapons, numerous historical examples show that that is enough. If the worse were to happen, many military units would defect along with their weapons systems and well planned light infantry ambushes would yield heavier equipment that in turn would yield even heavier equipment.

Even today in the world of F-18s, the infantryman remains the most important element on the battlefield. Just goes to prove the genius that our "Founders" were endowed with.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:45 AM
I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

-Gene

Soldier415
11-09-2008, 11:50 AM
I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

-Gene

Except for the F-14 Tomcat, those we sold to Iran...

Librarian
11-09-2008, 12:01 PM
I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

-Gene

Probably close. Would have to remove a lot of the electronics, too.

Apparently one can buy used F5Es (http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1029537) and Ukraine will sell you an SU-25 (http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=da&id=8239&cor=y) (Dunno what FAA says about that).

Interesting .PDF paper on export of miltech, specifically the F22, here (https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/saas/molloy.pdf).

sorensen440
11-09-2008, 12:04 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/02/17/jet.fighter.ap/index.html

PolishMike
11-09-2008, 12:07 PM
F-22>F-18

:)

On a side note- There are plenty of people in the US with military jet fighter aircraft without the weapons.

Mig 23 for 50k
http://www.aircraftbargains.com/ad/ad2426.asp

CalCop
11-09-2008, 12:11 PM
Arms would pertain to those weapons that could be carried on one's person. Do you really think the second amendment is restricted to that which you can carry on your person?

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 12:14 PM
On a side note- There are plenty of people in the US with military jet fighter aircraft without the weapons.

Mig 23 for 50k
http://www.aircraftbargains.com/ad/ad2426.asp

I know that people can import other fighter aircraft. Larry Elison famously flies one out of San Carlos sometimes. I'm going to have to dig on the US surplus issue.

-Gene

CSDGuy
11-09-2008, 12:29 PM
If I had the money and the time, I'd love to restore an A-6 to flight status. There'd be a lot of retrofitting of some of the avionics, and a small weight savings there. Of course all the weapons systems would have to go... but as long as it could fly and still be all-weather capable...

I can still dream... ;)

luv2shoot
11-09-2008, 12:42 PM
I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

What about the recent decommissioning of the F-14's? Even the static examples were being repossessed and destroyed by Uncle Sam. I have a friend who's in the air museum business and he said they had to give up their static F-14 to be destroyed.


From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-02-shredding-tomcats_N.htm

"As a Navy pilot, retired Capt. Dale Snodgrass delivered an F-14 to Iran — flying non-stop from the United States with roughly No. 68 of about 80 planes that Iran ordered.

Snodgrass said only key computers were taken out and ejection systems disabled on planes delivered to museums in past years. This year, when an F-14 went on display at a Miami museum, virtually everything was removed, leaving only a shell with the canopy painted black, said Snodgrass, who lives in St. Augustine, Fla.

Snodgrass is part of F-14 history. He flew Tomcats for roughly a quarter-century and amassed the most flight time in them of any pilot: more than 4,800 hours. He was named Navy pilot of the year around the time Top Gun hit theaters.

Snodgrass said he understands the Pentagon's destruction of F-14s but said it would be nice to see some preserved. Pilots dubbed the Tomcat "the turkey" because of its ungainly, turkey-like look when landing on aircraft carriers.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat#Retirement

"The remaining intact US Navy F-14 aircraft have been stored at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group "Boneyard", at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. As of July 2007, many of the remaining 165 aircraft were being shredded to prevent parts from being acquired by Iran, the only other nation to buy the F-14. By July 2007, 23 F-14s had been shredded at a cost of $900,000. Because of the strength of the landing gear, it was removed before shredding and cut up with a torch. The last remaining one after demolition will be located at the Pensacola air station."

Rob454
11-09-2008, 12:45 PM
I have been thinking lately, and am conflicted on this matter...the founding fathers clearly intended for each citizen to have his own gun in his own closet, and when necessary to come together with other citizens to form the "militia." The fathers were clearly against a standing army of any kind, except in times of war. Reading the book, "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, has convinced me that the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens 'outgun' the government...so that when the government becomes oppressive, the people could threaten with the militia if necessary. But, how feasible is that today? Now that we have a standing army with F-18s, tanks, and nukes...how feasible is it for the citizenry to outgun the government? Aren't there whackos out there who should not own nukes? But, at the same time, shouldn't the citizens outgun the government? What are your thoughts?

Well the founding fathers didnt have the weaponry that is available now. I personally cant see many people owning a f18 or any other high speed low drag jet fighter or tank. There is a guy at Chino airport who has a harrier jump jet but its not even flight worthy yet. i cant really imagine any private citizen being able to own and maintain a jet fighter or tank.
As far as citizens outgunning the military well thats not gonna happen. on a small scale its possible ( say a couple of civilians with couple of 50 cals vs a few soldiers with m16s) but overall I dont see it happening. Unless citizens go and rob the nearest military base its not gonna happen
Are there wackos out there who shouldnt own nukes. yeah of course there are. But Im sure they say the same thing about the US

buff_01
11-09-2008, 3:39 PM
Putting people into a group (a government bureaucracy, for example) does not give them new rights that the individuals in the group didn't have before. The individual retains total rights and the government has no special rights. In the same way, the government should not be able to do anything that you or I cannot do, including owning jet fighters, bombs, etc.

This is what the constitution was based on. Unfortunately the supreme law of the land has been totally ignored for much of this nation's history, and we are reaping the benefits of that negligence now.

But how can you trust the people with military weapons, you ask? I say, how can you trust the government with them? It's quite obvious that they are just as dangerous if you look at how many people have died at the hands of government in the last century (hundreds of millions).

Theseus
11-09-2008, 4:02 PM
Planes in the sky still need boots on the ground to paint a target.

I have already discussed with many military members that agree they will not abide any order to attack innocent American civilians. The problem is that we can't agree on what they would do if someone where trying to overthrow the government.

In most cases they consider anyone trying to overthrow our current government by force of arms to be enemies and are more than willing to do the deed, regardless.

Now, I feel that with the right tactics that we can give them a good fight.

anthonyca
11-09-2008, 4:03 PM
If i'm not mistaken it's unconstitutional for the government to use the military against the people so that is one reason we don't need those things, the other reason is that the military is made up of good folks like us, most of wich would not follow an order to attack civilians armed or not.

I was in the ARMY and most people would just do as told. Look at the Katrina confiscations by the guard.

1859sharps
11-09-2008, 4:26 PM
I know that people can import other fighter aircraft. Larry Elison famously flies one out of San Carlos sometimes. I'm going to have to dig on the US surplus issue.

-Gene

I am by no means and expert on surplus military hardware at this level. But I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

What little I do know about this subject, and it is little, the laws for surplus tanks/airplanes can be a bit on the odd side.

Example, I went on a tour of one of the largest private collections of armor in the US. the tour guide said that the number of M4 Shermans on display represented a small number the owner had. He has many others in Europe that could not currently be imported due to current laws/rules. However, he was able to bring in a current German Leopard 2 and Russian T72 tanks. Go figure.

As for the OP question. I believe the primary concern of the 2nd is the ownership of small arms of the kind one would commonly find in the hands of the infantry. rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.

fairfaxjim
11-09-2008, 5:02 PM
U.S. military hardware, including airplanes was once very easy to get surplus, restore and operate. As a result, a lot of older, particularly WWII vintage warbird aircraft are around, both privately owned and owned and operated by museums and historical foundations. For about the last 20 years, a much harder line has been taken by the US Govt. in regards to military surplus. It now needs to be "de-militarized" before sale. In the case of aircraft, that includes putting it into a condition that prevents it from ever flying again. That is usually accomplished by cutting the wing spars or other critical structural assemblly. To get one that is flyable usually requires some affiliation with the military, and it is on loan.

It is much easier to obtain foreign military aircraft, and then only the FAA has to be satisfied to operate them. They have become more strict in both certifying the aircraft and issuing pilot certifications. I don't know the current status, but for awhile, they were requiriing dectivation of all jet ejection seats in civilian operated arcraft a few years ago. There were a rather significant number of migs, L29, L39, Fouga, and other jet aircraft being imported, reconditioned and sold here. Even the few US warbirds that appeared seemed to be brought in surplus from foreign governments, not from the US govt.

artherd
11-09-2008, 5:39 PM
A friend owns an L39.

Warbird ownership is a tricky deal, requiring LOAs and the like from FAA. - They restrict where and when you may fly. Varies.

I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

-Gene

Let's get a couple.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 5:47 PM
Let's get a couple.

I wonder if Alison would try to seize an airframe...

-Gene

ptoguy2002
11-09-2008, 6:10 PM
I wonder if Alison would try to seize an airframe...

-Gene

If its not listed.....

510dat
11-09-2008, 6:36 PM
to answer the OP, look at the best historical parallels; fighting ships.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, armed merchantmen were the rule, rather than the exception. They were privately owned, and had cannon of various weights. Many of them were powerful enough to fight small/medium British and Spanish warships.

Even if the 2nd didn't protect the right to own armed F/A-18s, it should logically protect the right to own armed cruisers.

I certainly wouldn't mind owning a fast cruiser armed with vulcan cannons, 5" guns, AA missiles, etc etc. as long as it had enough cargo capacity to make it profitable.

bohoki
11-09-2008, 6:42 PM
hmm there is a fine line between what is the arm and what is the arm transporter


under the second amendment you can have the gun but you have no right to the wheelbarrow

MonsterMan
11-09-2008, 6:49 PM
Anyone remember the movie "Tank"? I liked it. :) It was about a guy who owned his own tank and when a local sheriff pissed him off, he went after him with it and to get his son back. ha ha.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/mike18xx/lctank2.jpg

CAL.BAR
11-09-2008, 7:07 PM
[QUOTE=Suvorov;1679878]If you got the money to buy, support, and arm an F-18, then you probably got the enough money that you already have enough political influence you don't need them. Same goes for M1 MBTs, Aircraft Carriers, Guided Missle Frigates, and Bradley Fighting vehicles. As far as the old stuff goes, plenty of people have old military aircraft and armored fighting vehicles.


I's ask for input from an FAA guy on this one. I seem to recall that private ownership of a supersonic capable aircraft is a BIG deal, requiring quite a bit of FAA approval

aileron
11-09-2008, 7:15 PM
I've always wanted to research whether there is anything stopping a US Citizen from buying a surplus F-18 without the guns. I'm pretty sure ITAR means you can't export 'em. I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened is that the military destroys them instead of selling them.

-Gene

From what I have been told if you want a cool high speed jet, you need to buy it outside the US and import it back in. That's how people get F-86 Sabre's, T38 talons and other toys.

Other than that you need to be a foundation or museum or some such thing. This F4 is privately owned by the Collings Foundation.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Misc/F4dAirToAir/F4TakingOff.jpg

So it has been done some how, because they got it from the US.

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/Houston/tx_f-4dphantom.htm


Five years ago, foreign warbird jets were starting to emerge as the powerful force in the future of vintage aviation. However, major legal obstacles were encountered when individuals made efforts to acquire non-demiled (demiled combat jets are not flight-worthy) US-built combat jets in America or from abroad. Despite these obstacles, the Collings Foundation decided that it was going to try to acquire and restore a Phantom for flight exhibition. Accordingly, it took an act of Congress by means of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill of 1999 to allow the Collings Foundation to acquire its F-4 Phantom.

Looks like friends in high places. :(

dwa
11-09-2008, 7:18 PM
without the gun, the more important avionics and the hardpoints it technically be the same as a cessna right?

jbolton
11-09-2008, 7:26 PM
There is a guy that has a Sukhoi Su-27 right here in Mountain House. I am not sure what the airport is called but its right off Byron. You can drive by and see it. He fly's it around here all the time, super sick too.


http://military.sakura.ne.jp/aircraft/photo1/1_su-27.jpg


There is a market for old DECOMMISSIONED military planes. But you will not be able to buy an F-18 because it is still in use.

aileron
11-09-2008, 8:00 PM
as far as civilians needing to match the armed forces
( tanks, planes) id just open your newspaper and read about current conflicts where one side has them and the other doesn't. these conflicts seem to drag out a bit and eventually the tanks and planes will go away.the rifleman will still be there...

Id also try googling things about different civilian/paramilitary groups in recent times in say Ireland, Vietnam, Afghanistan and such.

im not aware of these folks having much of anything.

I agree most people fight with far less.

If this country had so dissolved the rights of the people that we were thrown into a civil war because of it, you would need anti-tank missiles, and ManPads (Man portable SAM's), not tanks and jets.

There is no way to get the proper training and resources to go head to head with the US in a high tech one for one manner with tanks and jets. Its bad tactics. Never fight how your enemy fights well.

Your better off making it real hard for them to maneuver.

My personal tastes would be to cut off the head (get the political machine) and not worry about the police and military except when you have to. Just ignore them as much as you can to kill off those in charge.

I do think this whole idea is a little odd though. Were not in this kind of predicament. Id much prefer to focus on bringing the militia back and actually protecting our borders and helping during times of national disasters as we are suppose to do, instead of worrying about shooting it out with our own government. Its not that bad a government you know.

adamsreeftank
11-09-2008, 8:33 PM
Here's a link about a recent purchase by Google that also has a video of Ellison flying one of his jets:

Google's Newest Plane Is a Fighter Jet
Dornier Alpha Jet Now Parked at Moffett Field

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/business/Googles_Newest_Plane_Is_A_Fighter_Jet_.html

CalCop
11-09-2008, 8:45 PM
I was in the ARMY and most people would just do as told. Look at the Katrina confiscations by the guard.
That's what I'm afraid of.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 8:58 PM
I do think this whole idea is a little odd though. Were not in this kind of predicament. Id much prefer to focus on bringing the militia back and actually protecting our borders and helping during times of national disasters as we are suppose to do, instead of worrying about shooting it out with our own government. Its not that bad a government you know.
I did not say we were currently in any kind of predicament. I was merely opining that the government has perhaps broken the spirit of the 2nd amendment by outgunning the citizens.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:16 PM
I have been thinking lately, and am conflicted on this matter...the founding fathers clearly intended for each citizen to have his own gun in his own closet, and when necessary to come together with other citizens to form the "militia." The fathers were clearly against a standing army of any kind, except in times of war. Reading the book, "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, has convinced me that the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens 'outgun' the government...so that when the government becomes oppressive, the people could threaten with the militia if necessary. But, how feasible is that today? Now that we have a standing army with F-18s, tanks, and nukes...how feasible is it for the citizenry to outgun the government? Aren't there whackos out there who should not own nukes? But, at the same time, shouldn't the citizens outgun the government? What are your thoughts?

Eggselent distractive / trollish post. With all the very real RKBA issues looming over us like a Death Star, we should instead naval-gaze on the absurdity you've presented.
The Left has spent decades venerating the image of plucky peasant warriors and insurgents, armed with nothing but light and improvised weapons. In fact their media mavens would have us believe the same have defeated us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seemingly simultaneously telling us the might of the US military cannot defeat the plucky individuals, then flipping about 180 degrees when arguing the 2nd Amendment and dismissing it as 'irrelevent' in the modern era, because a man with a rifle can't defeat a tank. Which is it?

Well as folks in the RKBA argument are wont to do when liberals demonize guns, the answer (to this question too) is 'guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.'
And that is what we can do with our rifles, should a totalitarian government finally lose all restraint and require that we remove it. It will be modern Minutemen, decapitating the command structure and operating agents of a totalitarian government and whatever 'Civil Defense Corps' they try to throw against us.

It isn't a matter of a reductio ad absurdum (go ahead, look it up, I'll wait) strawman argument about comparative arms. It is a matter of People. As in We The People. There is no government, no government army, no massed police forces or national guard, that can quench the Will of the People, when those people are armed and willing to fight for what they believe in. Hell, Berliners and Muscovites did the job in '89 withOUT arms.
And this Nation, this legacy of our Founders of a Free People, which has grown so quickly to be the mightiest, most generous, most liberating nation on this Earth is not going to be stolen by a minority of socialist zealots.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:22 PM
Hmmm...I'll have to look into that...not familiar with that.


It's the Posse Comitatus Act, but it's already been violated several times and is essentially meaningless. And particulary so in the context in which it was just raise. A government moving against its people in such a way as to provoke a massive civilian counter-response is hardly going to be bound by a piece of paper.

And deliberate bait post or not, I'll indulge it for the sake of the kids reading this topic who have no damned clue about history or civics. The most recent violation was the use of US Army armored vehicles against civilians at Waco. Regardless of the other circumstances that prevailed (I think the situation was a perfect illustration of 'when mobs of idiots collide'), US Military vehicles and troops were seconded by General Wesley Clark to FedGov / ATF authorities to use against civilians there.

Another egregious violation of it was the use of the US Army against the Bonus Marchers in DC in 1932.

Suvorov
11-09-2008, 9:24 PM
I's ask for input from an FAA guy on this one. I seem to recall that private ownership of a supersonic capable aircraft is a BIG deal, requiring quite a bit of FAA approval

Not really, I have a friend who belongs to a group of aircraft restorers up in PDX area who have 2 Mig 21s and a F-104. The issue isn't whether the aircraft is supersonic capable, the issue is flying supersonic within US airspace.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 9:24 PM
Thanks for your input Rayra. I was not trolling or trying to distract from what you believe to be more important issues. I am relatively young in my political activism, and your posts have been informative.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:26 PM
Except for the F-14 Tomcat, those we sold to Iran...

Incorrect, at least how you referenced them. They were sold to the Shah of Iran as part of our normal arms sales of new & used equipment to our allies-of-the-moment. It wasn't a case of decommissioned equipment being surplused out.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:30 PM
What about the recent decommissioning of the F-14's? Even the static examples were being repossessed and destroyed by Uncle Sam. I have a friend who's in the air museum business and he said they had to give up their static F-14 to be destroyed.


That is being done specifically due to Iran, in an attempt to eliminate their gettign any spares.

They still have a good portion of those jets flying, albeit heavily modified. The Iranian mullahs exchanged a complete airfcraft and armaments to to Soviets in exchange for the remanufacturing of the others and the installation of replacement soviet engines and avionics.
The american contractor personnel disabled the computers / software in them when they were forced to flee the IRanian Revolution. They were essentially useless until the Iranians got the soviets to rebuild them.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:37 PM
I was in the ARMY and most people would just do as told. Look at the Katrina confiscations by the guard.

It was the California Highway Patrol, along with other 'guest' police forces imported for 'mutual aid'. And the Oklahoma Guard. And others.
Problem is it works just like the far-deployed Roman Legions. It was never their brothers and sisters they were imposing Rome's will upon. Units were recruited and generally sent far from home.

rayra
11-09-2008, 9:46 PM
Thanks for your input Rayra. I was not trolling or trying to distract from what you believe to be more important issues. I am relatively young in my political activism, and your posts have been informative.

Well my mistake then. A nic of 'Calcop' gives the impression of of someone that ought to know a good bit of these things. At least the civics and history pertaining to law enforcement and the citizenry. Or maybe I expect too much of police officers. Between political correctness, liberal risk-adverse governments and appointed chiefs / sheriffs, and declining standards in deperatmental requirements and education in general, there doesn't seem to be many people under 30 that grasp this stuff anymore.
There is a lot of history and historical precedent, much of it bad, between the People of this nation and its Laws and where the two intersect. You'd do well to study as much of it you can, particularly if you are a LEO, before the day comes you are give an unlawful order and have to decide what to do about it.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 9:47 PM
It's the Posse Comitatus ActIf I'm reading it right, it looks like congress has the ability to legally violate the act.

CalCop
11-09-2008, 9:50 PM
...declining standards in deperatmental requirements and education in general, there doesn't seem to be many people under 30 that grasp this stuff anymore...You'd do well to study as much of it you can, particularly if you are a LEO, before the day comes you are give an unlawful order and have to decide what to do about it.That's where I'm at...the studying stage. Politics in our state prevent people from getting unbiased education...even in the academy...I'm doing what I can to learn, buying and reading books, and learning from people like yourself.

artherd
11-09-2008, 9:52 PM
I wonder if Alison would try to seize an airframe...

-Gene

I wonder if she'd try the engine-start procedure inside the evidence lockup :)

artherd
11-09-2008, 10:06 PM
Other than that you need to be a foundation or museum or some such thing.
orly?

tombinghamthegreat
11-09-2008, 10:12 PM
You could instead buy SAMs to counter such aircrafts, it would only be illegal if you are convicted;)

SJgunguy24
11-09-2008, 10:49 PM
If its not listed.....


Wouldn't it be considred a "crew served weapon" the same as a 1919 or a M2?




I can try..........I can dream

dustoff31
11-10-2008, 6:05 AM
If I'm reading it right, it looks like congress has the ability to legally violate the act.

You might also consider researching the "Insurrection Act." It actually predates the Posse Comitatus Act. However, recent changes to the Insurrection Act effectively render the PC useless, as Rayra pointed out.

gunn
11-10-2008, 8:22 AM
You may be able to find this but I remember a few years back wondering if you could buy an Apache helicopter.
There was a guy in Montana or Wyoming or whatnot that would buy allegedly demilled parts kits and would re-assemble them, paint them grey, and sell them for "fire fighting" purposes.

The funny part, IIRC, was that the parts kits weren't all that demilled like the AK parts kits. He apparently had to go before congress for a hearing b/c of some incident where neighbors were reporting him flying over his land shooting up coyotes or wolves. I thought that was amusing and I wish I could find it again.
-g

tiki
11-10-2008, 12:18 PM
If i'm not mistaken it's unconstitutional for the government to use the military against the people so that is one reason we don't need those things, the other reason is that the military is made up of good folks like us, most of wich would not follow an order to attack civilians armed or not.

Yeah? It's also unconstitutional to wiretap without a warrant and to detain people indefinitely without counsel or charges being brought.

Elsinore
11-10-2008, 1:24 PM
http://matadorpulse.com/facilitating-martial-law-us-armys-new-dwell-time-misson-set-to-begin-in-october/

ArmyTimes.com reported that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (1st BCT) is being trained as an on-call federal response within the US.

Their new domestic mission, called a “dwell-time” mission, is set to begin Oct. 1.

This will mark “the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”

After spending 35 months in Iraq, the 1st BCT has been training at Ft. Stewart, Georgia. In addition to responding to “potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack,” the 1st BCT may be called upon to “help with civil unrest and crowd control.”

According to the Army Times, the soldiers have also “learned how to use ‘the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,’ 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.”

This is not the first time that active duty units have been called upon for a domestic assignment.

During Hurricane Katrina, units of the Army National Guard were mobilized in New Orleans.

Historians point out that if mobilization of soldiers leads to Martial Law, or the US Military policing the citizenry, constitutional rights are often violated, such as when soldiers went door-to-door confiscating legally-owned firearms during Hurricane Katrina.

Army Times notes that “after 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.”

cadurand
11-10-2008, 2:30 PM
I read an interview with a Supreme Court justice where he clarifed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and CARRY arms. He specifically said you can't carry a tank so it's not protected.

I think it was Scalia. Did anyone else hear the interview I'm thinking of? I can't remember where I saw it or I'd find it and reference it.

DrjonesUSA
11-10-2008, 4:21 PM
I have been thinking lately, and am conflicted on this matter...the founding fathers clearly intended for each citizen to have his own gun in his own closet, and when necessary to come together with other citizens to form the "militia." The fathers were clearly against a standing army of any kind, except in times of war. Reading the book, "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, has convinced me that the founding fathers' intent for the second amendment was to ensure that the citizens 'outgun' the government...so that when the government becomes oppressive, the people could threaten with the militia if necessary. But, how feasible is that today? Now that we have a standing army with F-18s, tanks, and nukes...how feasible is it for the citizenry to outgun the government? Aren't there whackos out there who should not own nukes? But, at the same time, shouldn't the citizens outgun the government? What are your thoughts?


a couple quick thoughts in no particular order:

1) The Bill of Rights places limits and restraints on the government, NOT citizens.


2) Back when the BOR was created, it was not uncommon for private citizens to own battleships and other weapons that we would not today consider to be protected by the Second Amendment -- see "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

3) Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross and "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" by Matthew Bracken to get a much more realistic picture of how a fight between citizens and the government would go -- here's a hint: it is NOT going to take place on the battlefield, in trenches, nor with fighter jets, tanks and nukes.

Glock22Fan
11-10-2008, 4:27 PM
There's a number of civilians with demilitarized fighters, both ours and from abroad, including Migs, Zeros and Messerschmits (to my knowledge). I think that I even heard of one pilot who somehow managed to keep active machine guns on his plane.

There's been a series on the Military channel where some of these planes have reconstructed famous battles of the past.

Me? I want an F-22 Raptor, but I'd settle for an F117.

CalCop
11-10-2008, 6:04 PM
The Bill of Rights places limits and restraints on the government, NOT citizens.Boy how the times have changed...where the government now limits our rights, instead of the other way around.

GammaRei
11-13-2008, 7:16 PM
I didnt feel like reading all of the posts, what happened to those F/A-18s that were for sale on EBay? I thought that they were sold to a citizen.

- G

DrjonesUSA
11-15-2008, 3:23 PM
I didnt feel like reading all of the posts, what happened to those F/A-18s that were for sale on EBay? I thought that they were sold to a citizen.

- G


????????????

Are you serious????? Link, please!!!

bg
11-15-2008, 6:03 PM
If i'm not mistaken it's unconstitutional for the government to use the military against the people
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5115
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
one excerpt.
Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles “race riots” of the early 1990s.

Sorry to go off topic, but a member did mention this..