Own a SAM site for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four A6 Intruders break into my airspace. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and S-300. Blow a golf ball sized holes through the first intruder, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my MANPADS on the second intruder, miss him entirely because he uses flares and nails the neighbors Mi-8 Hip. I have to resort to the S-200 mounted in the backyard loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two intruders in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix ZSU-2-23 and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He loses fuel waiting on the F5Fs to arrive since multiple 23mm wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Imagine the home automation setup an S-300 battery would need. That’s a lot of Raspberry Pis.
Is there a legitimate reason why anti-aircraft guns are not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment? Asking for a friend.
Not just the small MANPADS, but I’m talking like a full on ZSU Shilka
The only logical conclusion is that civilians should be able to, nay mandated to, own anti-aircraft missiles. And while we’re at it anti-tank missiles too.
Imagine if every single person in Ukraine had had anti-aircraft and anti-tank missles.
Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.
Honestly, even if it were legal, who would be able to afford it? It’d just mean the ultra wealthy would have even more powerful private armies. A single missile costs at least a few hundred thousand dollars, with some systems costing millions per missile. Which is unfathomably expensive when you think of what you can buy with a few million dollars.
Isn’t that just a fancy term for shooting rolls of coins at people with a slingshot?
Afraid of the increasing missile street violence? Call now and buy your own handheld missile launcher today at 50% discount. The best way to stop a bad guy with a missile launcher is a good guy with a missile launcher.
Anti-aircraft missiles, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear SAMs, shall not be infringed.
Those gravy seals are totally going to live in tunnels for months.
OK, I don’t think I have heard people arguing about vietnam, but Afghanistan was retaken in days by an armed rebellion, and they only ever shot down 38 aircraft, and did not down a single fast mover during the entire war. And even so, a countries government can’t survive by bombing its infrastructure against a sustained rebellion. If the majority of America decided to rebel against the us government, they would be completely screwed.
If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn’t need guns
Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how “if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control” and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.
There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.
