Sure, if you have a permit...no, a reservist ID does not qualify.

Why not? Kage made an excellent argument in another thread that, really, things like rocket launchers have almost no use in committing crimes or even for self-defense. Their only real use is against government intrusion. Let's assume you have a warthog in your driveway. Let's also realize that everyone in your local area knows you have a warthog, and should anything happen involving a warthog, or any sort of military aircraft at all, the police (and military) will be at your door first. And let us note that the expense of owning and maintaining one is such that you're already well-off and quite invested in the system (so you have quite a lot to lose if you are even accused of a crime), and that you are capable of buying, already, a private jet or tractor trailer full of gasoline or all sorts of other dangerous items.

What are you possibly going to do with it which is going to cause any trouble? What are you going to do with a warthog which you might not already be able to do if you converted that ten million (or however much a warthog costs) into other powerful machinery, like a private jet? If your intent is to destroy a building or rob someone, using a warthog is probably the stupidest way to do it.



Now you're being intentionally inane. If the founders had meant that, they would have said that. THey were certainly literate. They said 'arms'. That includes all arms currently available, previously available, or available in the future. Otherwise, are you seriously supporting the idea that, when they wrote out the first amendment, they were only supporting the right to publish documents printed by manual printing press or quill?

A useful legal trick, often used in the deciding of opinions, is to extend an argument out a step or three.

To wit: Nezumi, so that means private parties should be allowed to possess nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? Or tanks? You did say "all arms", after all.

Keep in mind, because one of the requirements of being a sovereign state in international affairs is to be the sole provider of the legitimate use of force (and to be basically the top dog against all domestic challengers), if you have x, the cops must therefore have the possibility of being equipped with x*2. And the military x*3.

Do you really want the local police department to have to have combat aircraft? Or tanks?

Can you afford one? If so, it's fine by me. You'll still have to follow whatever air traffic laws exist, get licensed as a pilot just like anyone else, etc, etc...but, yeah. Don't break laws with it, and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing innately illegal or wrong with an A-10. What you do with it is what counts, not mere ownership.

When in doubt, the Constitution says "yes, you The People can do that." That's what the Ninth and Tenth are all about.


Actually, what the Founders meant was "the same guns as the regular army." They weren't referring to specific weapons, or they would have said "muskets and flintlocks." They said arms, which means -- and was explained in many of their letters -- "the weapons used by militaries of the day."

Unless you'd like to argue that the First only protects proclamations made from the town square, and documents written with quill and ink? Or that only 18th century cottages and farmsteads require a warrant to enter? Or that only soldiers alive at the time it was written aren't allowed to barge into your house and sleep where ever they want?

Hell yes. It would complement the M1A1 MBT I want in my driveway splendidly. Please note, that's not sarcasm. Stick that in your attempted Slippery Slope fallacy and smoke it.

See, shooting people is already against the law. We don't need more laws to punish people just in case they might commit a crime.

That's fine, and I encourage you to do so. The 'muskets and flintlocks only' argument doesn't really follow, but the A-10 question is a genuine question, with a genuine (if surprising) answer.



This is where the real constitutional question does indeed come into play, because:
1) These weapons have little or no use against the government in the case of revolution (so doesn't meet intent of the law)
2) Aren't weapons normally used by a military force (doesn't meet wording of the law)
3) Aren't weapons that can be effectively defended against at any level (has unintended consequences that likely were not foreseen at the time)

I think that they should be limited, but should done so in the legal way (via amendment).




That's just arguing pedantics. The definition was made up after the US had shifted as much as it had. Had things turned out differently, they would have made a different definition (or we would have a literal democracy, where we recognize sovereign power coming from the people, not from an elite selection of the people).



If we found ourselves in a place where enough people had the money to own aircraft and tanks, well... Let me just say, I think that would be a pretty nice situation, actually

"Muskets and flintlocks" only doesn't follow, correct.

That does not mean that "A-10s for everybody" or "AK-47s for everybody" follows, either.

I don't want to (really, really do not want to) cite case law, as I do that for school plenty, but the first cases on the Second Amendment (setting up both the "inidividual right" and "collective right" arguments) hit the courts before the 1820s were out. (For the record, the opinions split both ways until about the 1930s, when the discourse shifted pretty decisively to a "Collective Right" viewpoint, and then the Second Amendment wasn't touched in that regard until DC v Heller.)

The Framers weren't even *dead* yet and they were arguing this. Technology had barely advanced, and already they were arguing this.

I daresay that the Framers would issue a collective "What the fuck?" at the idea of repeating rifles and the level of carnage they could inflict, to say nothing of more modern weapons. Or modern sights. Or...well, suffice to say that while I still think they'd have passed the Second Amendment, I think they would have added important qualifiers to the thing if they had had a bit of technological foresight. Because both sides have important points.

Yes, individuals should have the right to bear arms. That makes sense.

It does not follow, however, that all individuals would have the right to bear arms, though. It makes minimal sense that someone (for instance) judged insane by a court (who in most states *loses the right to vote* as a result) would be allowed to possess firearms. It makes minimal sense that someone convicted by a jury of their peers of a violent felony would be allowed to possess firearms. It does not follow that the "right to bear arms" means anything greater than small arms. It does not follow that the right to bear arms means a right to use an M4 for hunting.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, to borrow a phrase from First Amendment jurisprudence. Either for the people or the government.

---

A truly pedantic point: Actually, the definition of a sovereign state as the sole provider of legitimate violence comes from before the Constitution - from Hugo de Grotius, if I recall correctly, who was around a century before that.

No. It is sold, at subsidized prices, at all of the many public ranges. There is a rule that you need to use it there, but most people don't even know the rule exists and even fewer follow it.

and there were people who wanted a king for life instead of a president.

you are right on one thing. it is perfectly fine to ammend the constitution to limit the 2nd ammendment. Hence why it is ammendable! but as written it means no touchie everyone can have any and all the firearms they want! The real problem is when politicians try to change what it means instead of actually changing it.

What exactly is wrong with hunting with an M4? It is becoming more popular every year as a deer and varment rifle. Now alot of that started because of people like you saying it has no hunting purpose so it should be illegal, which is just silly. But after people tried it they realised it makes a great hunting rifle!

And since when have we cared much about international law? It was also illegal for us to revolt.
And I bet Thomas Jefferson, and Mr Franklin would be more supprised that we let the govt get away with being so restrictive. I seem to remember Franklin liked to get high and go to french orgies.

Deny fireams to people that eggheads think are insane? that doesnt sound like a good idea because they havent done anything wrong yet. That is trying and convicting them on potential. If that is ok then we should probably convict all govt workers at all levels of grand theft and murder; and put them in prison or hang em before they get in office or show up for the first day of work. As I've said before though if a felon has been released and ya think he will commit a crime again why was he released? why should I have my rights taken away because many dont have the stomach for punishing criminals?

Rystefn: perhaps you should learn more about progressivism. The leaders of it were fairly honest about it in the early 1900's but renamed it after they got voted out. There are alot of very scary (if you enjoy true personal liberty) end goals progressivism is after. And in the 60's some radicals joined up that added in some very scary means to their ends.

just to be clear true personal liberty means
1. the right to buy and use any product how I see fit.
2. the right to manufacture or alter any property I own.
3. the right to use all of my money how I see fit.
4. the right to keep or pass on my money and property how I see fit.
and all the protected rights listed in the constitution. and why do I have the rights listed above well the constitution does not give anyone the right to regulate them or have control over them so they are ceded to me.

and because we are a lawful society not anarchy this of course means that my liberty only extends to the point of not infringeing on other's liberties.

LOL, we've had problems in the past not because they couldn't own stuff, but because they couldn't afford/didn't have the foresight to have just a few ordinary rifles on hand.

Perhaps you should realize that other people don't have an especial claim to the title. Progressive --> progress. Trying to change things to new and better ideas makes you a progressive. I'll have the same argument about being a republican despite my massive disagreement with the political party which tries to lay sole claim to the title. The world is full of people trying to legitimize themselves by laying sole claim to a title which only applies to them in passing.

In short, that was me standing up against those people bastardizing a name which rightly applies to me, and to you for believing them.

yes of course Progressive --> progress. Thats kinda the problem. "progress" even to those who dont want it.

so are you saying that Progressivism does not encumpass:

social justice
centralization of power
heavy govt regulation of private enterprise
deprivatising charity - social workers
prohibition laws

You're capitalizing again. Big-P Progressivism is to the political philosophy of progressivism as Big_R Republicanism is to the political philosophy of republicanism. As a person who strongly supports the idea of a republic as the closest thing we'll likely see to a well-functioning human government, I am appalled at the ideas espoused under that title which have nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of a republic.

ok hows this then?

so are you saying that progressivism does not encumpass:

social justice
centralization of power
heavy govt regulation of private enterprise
deprivatising charity - social workers
prohibition laws

Yes. I am saying exactly that. For example: prohibition laws aren't progress, they're the status quo. Being pro-prohibition laws makes you conservative (keep things as they are), not progressive (change things). Of course, it is possible, and common, to be conservative on some issues and not on others. Obviously, not all change is progress, so hat was a bit of oversimplification to make a point, but hopefully I made my stance at least reasonably clear on this.

ninja edit: so is progress getting rid of all prohibition laws? how about getting rid of the income tax since its been around a while?

However, that said - I would consider the removal of pretty much all prohibition laws to be positive progress, personally. Income tax is a very complicated subject, and I think we're sidetracked more than enough already.

well how about centralised power then? its been heavily centralised last century so would you say its progressive to centralise or decentralise? and since the last 4+ pages are off topic why use that as a reason for anything?

I would say that it's much more complicated than that. Some things are highly centralized and have been for a very long time. Some things are highly centralized, and it's pretty new. Other things are pretty decentralized, and have been for a very long time, while yet another set is decentralized as new thing. More than that, I'd say neither of the dividing lines (centralization and time) are nearly absolute, but are both rather fuzzy and open to interpretation. Being an anarchist at heart, I'd like to say that every move towards decentralization is progress, but I'm also a realist, and have to face the fact that, in the real world, some things simply must be consolidated to function well. Beware of anyone who tries to pitch politics as simple, they're trying to sell you something, and usually it's something you really don't want.


That's an exaggeration, at best. Even so, getting more and more off-topic is generally considered bad forum etiquette. Discussions of the legality of owning and operating certain classes of firearms is to be expected in a thread about a new gun and how it relates to a dystopian fictional world. The politics of income tax, on the other hand, is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

It's not "people that eggheads think are insane", whatever that means.

It's people who've been judged insane by a court. That only happens after you've been involuntarily committed. To be involuntarily committed means you've been judged (after psychiatric examination) as a threat to yourself and/or others.

well thats my point though.
ninja edit: "judged insane by a court. That only happens after you've been involuntarily committed."
what crime has been committed?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" what criminal act has been done? Judging someone to have abnormal mental or behavioral patterns is enough to take away liberty? So thought police is ok now?

The problem with "progress" toward "new and better" ideas is that people often have different ideas about what's "better". Thats why terms like "progressive" aren't very useful in political dialogue (IMHO). Ask 100 people if they support progress and 100 people will say "Hell yeah!". Then you ask them what that means and you get 100 different definitions. At best its vague. At worst its deceptive.

Same goes for liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, libertarian, populist... the people who use these terms to describe themselves are actively redefining them on a near-daily basis to the point where none of them mean what they appear to.

Thats why you have to look at the issues and think for yourself. I think we can all agree on that.

That is exactly why when asked my answer is a very somber "I'm ME"

So you are saying most Swiss reservists are deaf? Because the relevant orders (including the obvious "misappropriating ammunition is a serious military offence") are read out after every exercise
Yes, controls are rarely done but that is not what the NRA and other folks claim to be so great about Switzerland...just like they conveniently ignore the draft thing, which tends to make the same bunch of people go "ZOMFG, involuntary servitude!!!!!11111111oneoneeleven"

This post and others before it on the same sub-thread:



There are many precedents, lots of criteria commonly used to limit persons' rights to various activities, even in the United States:

Age: limits to driving, voting, marriage, military service, (ownership of firearms? Not sure.) ...

Physical size: service in various professions, access to amusement park rides ...

Education/certification: access to employment ...

In all of these cases, individuals who do not meet the exclusionary criteria may very well have the capacity to perform the function or avoid failing to perform the function legally, yet are legally excluded, and society, or even other individuals seem content to have it so.

so are you suggesting we should go back to only letting certain races or genders vote?

I am speaking of the bill of rights not if someone can physically do something.

beyond that though I reject the idea of precedent meaning anything when it comes to the constitution because it allows the constitution to be changed through interpretation instead of a constitutuional ammendment.

Then you reject...The very system of law the Constitution depends on to mean anything.

Really, the common law and the Constitution come as a package.

where does it say in the constitution that common law may/shall be applied to the constitution?

This is the kind of extrapolation decried earlier in the thread. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the argument that rights should not be limited by assumptions before behaviour is contradictory to many of the laws in your country and mine. These laws have not been struck down as unconstitutional in either country.

The oft ignored 10th amendment.

Sorry for sounding uneducated, but I don't think the 10th amendment says that (unless you're arguing that it grants the STATES the power to apply common law).

It doesn't. However, speaking legally and historically (in other words, when you're not saying "The Constitution says what it says because I want it to say that" - which I'm not saying you are) - the Constitution doesn't stand by itself. It sits in a certain context, whether you're a strict constructionist or a fan of a living document.

That context is English legal and constitutional history - without it, much of the Constitution makes no sense. It wasn't stated by the document's writers because it was assumed. Implicitly, this includes the Common Law of England, which includes English court decisions. (Mostly from before the Revolution, but also in some rare cases from around the time of the Revolution.) It's implicit, it's unstated, because to the Framers, it was obvious. To argue that we don't listen to the Common Law is like arguing the courts have no authority because they use a flag with a gold fringe.

That context, when history provides no help, is the Federalist Papers and Madison's notes on the debates at the Constitutional Convention. They're not held to the same standard because the former were polemics and the latter are at times unclear or don't speak to a section.

I could go on, but am not sure it's worth it.

To educate:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

Common law (in the U.S.) is a body of law going back to english common law. Typically it involves contract disputes (especially when poorly written contracts go into dispute), divorce (who gets fluffy and the kids), and other such things. Mostly local stuff, which is why the 10th amendment adresses it by saying hey, you have the power to enforce common law at the state or local level because the rest of the constitution doesn't mention it.

Side note: common law is set on the precedents set before it, it was not legislated.

Alright, so we're in agreement. However, the issues under discussion so far (namely, restricting access to firearms) have largely been federal, not state issues (or at least only federal laws have been mentioned). Are you in agreement that the 10th/common law doesn't give power to limit access to firearms at the federal level, only at the state level?

I like that some of you folks are having a lively firearms discussion. I would suggest that several of you guys swing on over to http://www.opencarry.org and check out their forums. Specifically, check the Virginia Forum. Pay attention to folks like VCDL_President, user, GrapeShot, skidmark, & ProShooter.

Karoline, your stance on firearms is damned scary. I have always held to the idea that the 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' was pretty damn easy to interpret.

The people are the supreme sovereigns in this nation (USA). It is from them political authority is granted to the State & Federal Governments. It also means that 'We the People' can revoke that authority.

With that right, we can keep & bear arms however we want... as long as we aren't using our rights to the detriment of others' ability to enjoy Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So as long as you are not using your rights to hurt others, you can use your rights however you wish.

(Side note: funnily enough, that resembles a Wicccan creed... "Do as you will, harm none")


I have to agree with others... if you want an A-10, go for it. No skin off my back. Why? It's not harming my rights or well-being. Why should I support efforst to restrict your actions if your actions cause no harm to me except perhaps moral outrage? Last I checked, we had the right to free speech and that it did NOT come with the right to not be offended.

But for those of you who are pro-gun control (stronger/tougher laws that prevent gun ownership among law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to deter gun crime or criminals), please try those arguements over on OpenCarry.org for me. If you do, please go with an open mind... or at least be open to opposing viewpoints. You may very well learn something.

BTW, here's a link for some interesting reading: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Actually the 2nd amedment addresses these issues, in stating "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." Which of all the amendments in the bill of rights, has had its meaning reinterpreted multiple times. My take--people refers to the individual and that reference to militia is a refernce to the common law usage where every freeperson was to be armed for the defence of the community and self.

My comment is that gun control laws have to pass muster on the Federal level as well due to the 14th amendment.

The applicable part reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 10th in this case would be superseded by the 14th.

I can only state my personal opinion that when you carry this argument too far in either direction you look like nutcases. No, I don't want my senile neighbor or angry radicals or any number of other people out there to have access to Stinger missles, Javelin ATGMs, Sarin gas canisters or weaponized Anthrax, even though they haven't been convicted of any crime and are US citizens. And no, I don't think that all citizens should be restricted from owning weaponry. There's got to be a sensible middle ground that balances the need for the state to maintain order and security against the need for individuals to own and use weapons for protection and other legitimate uses.

People can say that the Second Amendment is obvious, but there are plenty of things in it that can be open to interpretation:
"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."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Why is this included in the sentence? Is the right to keep and bear arms only supposed to be in support of the need to maintain a Militia? The phrase wouldn't have been included just at random, it must be significant in the context of the right or it wouldn't be there.

They cite it's necessity for the security of a free State; is this in the context of our militias assisting the army in protecting the interests of the state against enemies foreign or domestic, or is this in order to counter-balance the power of the State to impose it's will on the People? If this well regulated militia needs to be able to go toe-to-toe with the State (i.e. the military) then that implies that citizens absolutely need access to things like Stingers and Javelins as well as tanks, artillery, and WMDs. Could that really be a reasonable interpretation?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
Who consititutes the people in this case? All citizens? We currently withhold firearms from felons, but they're still citizens. Should they have guns too? There's nothing here that specifies restrictions based on age, sanity, or competancy either, so go ahead and hand the toddler a flamethrower? Common sense would seem to indicate that in this context 'people' implies a more limited subset of the population than 'every US citizen'. But it's not specified. Maybe the intent was to arm everyone and let the stupid/accident-prone people remove themselves from the gene pool?

"shall not be infringed."
Do they really mean NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL? Saying 'no weapons in the courthouse' is an infringement. Do you really want to give every loose wingnut in the country access to heavy weaponry like anti aircraft weapons? If we do than there are bound to be some percentage of the population who will insist on fucking it up for everybody else with planes falling out of the sky and mortar rounds dropping at random in the city.

Just my opinion.

maybe you didnt catch what was said before since we're at page 6 now.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
all free men 18-40 something.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
all free humans that are a citizen of the USA. yes including felons. everyone. felons only lost their rights to firearms in the 1900s. I want to say 68 but it could have been in the 30s.

"shall not be infringed."
do you realise these guys just picked a fight with THE world power because they were tired of the loss of rights? I'm sure they thought it was important that they had just the same gear as the regular army. as to having areas where no guns are allowed... I dont know.

As far as opencarry.org why argue with the choir? good site though.

I caught what was said before, but I don't believe that what was written before were the only possible valid interpretations of the phrases.

By the way, I want a BMP. Even a BMP-1 would be fine. The amphibious capability would be real convienient for lakeside vacations...no need to rent a boat or anything, just drive the BMP back and forth across the body of water. The gun ports would also be good in that anyone who tries to carjack the BMP at a red light with anything less than a RPG or IED is going to fail spectacularly.

Funny thing is, the limitation on weapons around government offices started when the Black Panthers stood in front of the courthouse with AR-15s. They didn't do anything illegal. They didn't do anything dangerous. It was just that a bunch of angry black men were frightening the white people in power. A surprising majority of gun control laws in the US were cases of the dominant power exerting power over the weaker power, be they of a different race, nationality or socioeconomic level.

(However, things like anthrax have no real use in war, either to defend against foreign threats or to defend against a tyrannical government, so like I said previously, there's no reason to understand the 2nd amendment to extend to those.)




Both. Jefferson wrote some excellent letters on the topic, noting on the one hand how a citizen-run militia will never go become an invading aggressor (as what happened with Britain), will never work against the interests of those citizens, and will generally side with the people over the central government.



You're not a full citizen as a child. You're not a full citizen if you're a convict currently serving out your sentence. I suppose people can debate if you're a full citizen prior to serving out your sentence.



In so far that weapons are necessary for defending against the state itself, yes, no restrictions. Stinger missiles, okay. Weapons at the courthouse? Downright necessary.

And as I posted previously, if you have the money for AA, you already have the money to screw things up for everyone else. Buy a tanker full of gasoline, you can do more damage with that than with an AA gun. So no, really, the argument of 'what if I bought an A-10 and started shooting down jetliners' falls as soon as you realize that, if you had the money for an A-10, you'd also have the money to kill twice as many people using a simpler method already available to you, with far less chance of being caught before or after.

I'm more concerned with a felon losing the right to vote than I am his right to legally own a gun. That's the real tragedy in America. I mean, buying a stolen gun illegally is cheaper and easier than buying one legally, anyway. Well, maybe not a convenient as hitting gunbroker.com but there's not much hassle involved here.

Really though, these kind of restrictions, like gun ownership and loss of voting rights, are a new and legal means to disenfranchise the poor and minorities. After the Black Panther Party for Self-defense made it ok for black people and other minorities to have guns without institutionalized police harassment, they had to think up new ways to keep the underclasses subjugated.
[EDT: looks like nezumi beat me to this point while I was away.]

Really, it's all just a new means of pulling the same shit that they've been pulling since day one. Criminalize society to the point where you can cherry-pick reasons to take away just about anyone's rights just about any time. Keeps the undesirables manageable.


As to the earlier question of what freedoms we have today that our grandparents didn't have, my only reply is that white privilege sure is a great vantage point, isn't it?
In the state where I currently reside, there was a law on the book making it illegal to be "colored" up until 1926.
Hows that for rights?


Also, as to the assertion that gun crime is higher in places with more restrictions on CC, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. You may lose credibility by overstating your case. Not too many hoods I know pay close attention to what it takes to get a permit. That being said, things like the DC handgun ban are idiotic. As I said in paragraph 1, legally owned guns aren't used in street crime. Well, I guess that's not entirely true, since those guns were all owned and carried legally until they were stolen. And a product such as the one we were originally discussing is a decent first step in stopping that kind of shit.

At least until someone does a little Logic + Armorer (10, 5 minutes) Extended Test

There's no war but the class war, and it wages neverending.

SCOTUS opinions is that the secondary clauses are not actually important. Which is how the life + 50 year copyright becomes "limited Times".

You can't parse these things using the current dictionary meanings, and unless you have a really good grounding in precedent it's hard to see what they mean to a judge since crazy decisions like Slaughterhouse are still theoretically binding despite the obvious racial superiority reasoning.

Hey! How did Marx get in here?

No officer, I didn't do anything illegal. I just asked that old lady for a small cash donation while loading my AR-15, what's wrong with that?



People who try to bring down jetliners normally don't care about what happens afterwards, but care a great deal about producing a big, memorable bang.

Until very recently that was not the case (this is why until recently the SOP for a hijacking was to stay calm and wait for the terrorists to land the plane - if you die, you can't cash out. Now the SOP is to stay calm until the police teleport in.)

However, this doesn't change the fact that if Al Qaeda bought an A-10 legally, every cop in the world would know about it and be on the watch for it. If they did anything with it even vaguely illegal, they'd be brought in or shot down. They might *possibly* bring down a single airliner for their hundred million dollar investment. Compare this to the cost of just buying your own cessna for $50,000 and crashing it into a jetliner while it's coming in for a landing and figure out which is a smarter investment.

A-10 control really has not done much for reducing the threat to jetliners. The threat is still there because firstly, people who are going to break the law by bringing down an airliner already are willing to break the law, so don't care much if it's illegal to purchase the weapons they're going to use, and secondly, because attacking an airliner with an A-10 is stupid expensive compared to just putting a bomb on it.

You might as well be complaining that we should restrict race cars, because robbers can use them to escape police after robbing a 7-11. The truth is, robbers aren't rich enough to afford race cars, or they wouldn't be robbers. They're going to be using their buddy's hyundai, and you can't make hyundais illegal, because we need cheap cars to get us to work every day.

Bank CEOs?

Everybody keeps talking about A-10s and M1A1s and other big ticket expensive items. But you can make a big splash without a lot of cash (hey, I already sound like an advertisement!) using stingers and AT4s. You don't even need the latest tech - a first generation stinger from the 1970s would have no problems taking down an airliner which doesn't have advanced countermeasures. They're fire-and-forget, they only cost a couple thousand bucks, and the firer can shoot, drop the weapon and drive away before the jet's hit the ground.

Same thing with first generation LAWs, AT4s, etc. Any one of them could defeat your average armored car or Brinks van. As long as I don't need to defeat Chobam armor or similar I don't need an expensive weapon.