patrick.net

Bap33 says

Where do I draw the line …. I like to keep it simple. If you can carry it down the street, and all it does is throw a chunk of solid material that does not explode on impact, you should be allowed to carry it down the street

What do you say then to the people who say that laws banning them from carrying grenade launchers is infringing upong their 2nd amendment rights?

no tat, I explained above that the right for an American to be legally armed at any time should be a personal weapon, able to be carried and fired by a single person, with a non-exploding projectile. The rapid fire or caliber should not matter. If you can carry it, and want to, then you should. And the laws about murder and brandishing are enough to control use. If you check above you will see that is what I said.

Kevin,
you have decided the 2nd amendment does not grant Americans the right to carry a weapon, and this is becasue you say it is vauge. We disagree, completely. I agree with the following:
""A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.""

The same guys wrote the rights that the sexual deviants are protected by. Right?

Bap33 says

no tat, I explained above that the right for an American to be legally armed at any time should be a personal weapon, able to be carried and fired by a single person, with a non-exploding projectile. The rapid fire or caliber should not matter. If you can carry it, and want to, then you should.

I agree that's what you said. And that it's your arbitrary guideline. My question is what do you say to the person who wants to carry a grenade launcher and argues that not allowing him to do so violates his 2nd amendment rights?

Bap33 says

Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny

Bap--do you agree that this idea is out of date now?

Bap33 says

if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?

Do you think citizens with guns could overpower the US military?

Bap33 says

marcus,
the law has to do with regonizing the coupling of two humans that claim to be different. They want that difference recognized legally. I would like to know how that is going to happen. How is their claim of being a sexual deviant going to be proven - legally? Will their own verbal or written assertion be enough?

Bap,
I don't think that the goal is to legally recognize the coupling of two humans who claim to be different. The goal is to grant them equal rights in the eyes of the law. For the most part, homosexuals practice the same sexual acts as do heterosexuals - only they do them to same-sex partners. They're the same as heterosexuals except when it comes to their sexual orientation - and most homosexuals desire long-term loving relationships just like heterosexuals.

Many people disagree with "their" desire to be recognized as the same as "us." I believe that there are so many other things upon which we can spend our time and resources - the mormon church raised millions of dollars to fight this issue - but I also believe that people have the right to vote on issues in our society. It's just that, after the dust has settled, no more (or less) people will be gay as a result. This is an issue that separates us, not one that unites us. Ugh.

Troy says

unfortunately, there’s been quite a bit of bleed over in this “private” right of yours. Clocktower shootings in Texas, schoolyard shootings in Stockton, Columbine, the VA shooting incident, plus all the accidental deaths caused by children getting ahold of their parents unlocked guns & ammo.

Do we outlaw alcohol because of drunk drivers? Do we outlaw cars because they kill? Knives? Bullriding? Motorcycles? Power tools? I know that guns played a huge part in these shootings, but if these psychos were determined to kill people and no guns were available, they'd have built pipe bombs or something. I don't believe that outlawing guns will stop violence.

Kevin says

Are you actually saying that because gun control laws don’t completely eliminate gun violence that it somehow contradicts the argument that you don’t have a constitutional right to outgun the state’s police?

Remember the bank robbery in Hollywood, where the guys had armor penetrating bullets? As I recall, the police went to a nearby gun shop and obtained weapons that could level the playing field. Unfortunately, the police were outgunned - and they shouldn't have been. They should be better armed.

I don't have all the answers regarding gun control. But the problem seems to be that guns are an everyday part of many people's lives. There's more to this country than the coasts, which are heavily populated. There are rural areas where hunting & fishing occur everyday - and where people have many guns and they don't shoot each other.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal who loves my guns & support the rights of others to own and use theirs. That we have a right to bear arms, and that this, like gay equality, isn't as big an issue as people purport it to be. At this point in our history, even if we attempted to ban guns, it would be impossible to enforce.

:)

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says
if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?
Do you think citizens with guns could overpower the US military?

That's the question I would like to see answered by you Bap33 around your argument that the value of having a well-armed citizenry would prevent the government or a foreign invader to easily overpower the people and oppress them. When our military has stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence, and the like and the citizenry is armed with handguns and rifles but not anything that would project anything that might explode, how does the citizenry fight against such military might? If you take your argument and extrapolate from 1700's to today a citizen would need to be able to have access to stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence, etc. in order to even begin to match the power of the US military. Good luck with that.

And, it's not the difference we want recognized with same gender/sex marriage. It's quite the opposite. We want the same equal protection under the law for our relationships that different gendered/sexed couples have. This has nothing to do with sexual behavior. It's all about legal standing, contracts, obligations, and protections in establishing a stable relationship.

We've already won the battles against the sodomy laws, which don't apply to me anyway since I consider myself a proud Gomorran. My home state of Illinois was first to repeal its sodomy laws in 1969 (interesting date to do it). The rest of the states have followed suit or rarely enforce these laws because they are mostly an intrusion into the private sex lives of the citizenry.

simchaland says

That’s the question I would like to see answered by you Bap33 around your argument that the value of having a well-armed citizenry would prevent the government or a foreign invader to easily overpower the people and oppress them.

Hey, who needs foreign invaders when we have the banks and politicians.

simchaland says

If you take your argument and extrapolate from 1700’s to today a citizen would need to be able to have access to stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence, etc. in order to even begin to match the power of the US military. Good luck with that.

I think the 2nd Amendment still has importance today.

The point isn't that private citizens engage the 1st Marine Division in open warfare, the point of the amendment was to ensure sufficient stock of arms, and the knowledge of their use, to counter the rise of a tyrannical totalitarian state.

In this bleak future, every gun, and every true freedom-fighter, will be important, and over time their resistance would prompt defection and we'd find ourselves in a full-blown Civil War II.

But, in the real world, if we can't fix our problems at the ballot box, guns sure as hell aren't going to solve anything.

The problem isn't gummint or its the politicians and bureaucrats, the problem is us, and among this 'us', the stupidity runs particularly deep on the conservative right as expressed in their talk-radio bullshit and public propaganda mills. The same people who are clamoring loudest for their RKBA.

Bap33 says

The same guys wrote the rights that the sexual deviants are protected by. Right?

I wish I could be so lucky to say that I engaged in sexual deviance with my GF. If I do ever find that special lady, I will let the government intrude on my sweet love over my dead, cold boni'er.

simchaland says

When our military has stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence, and the like and the citizenry is armed with handguns and rifles but not anything that would project anything that might explode, how does the citizenry fight against such military might?

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc...

Bap33 says

you have decided the 2nd amendment does not grant Americans the right to carry a weapon,

No, I said that there are clearly some limits (even you admit as much). We clearly have a constitutional right to possess weapons (even firearms).

There is nothing that makes your "if you can carry it" definition right. It's simply your opinion. If we have laws that say you can't have automatic weapons, it isn't contradicting the "right to bear arms" any more than banning the possession of nuclear weapons is.

I hope any rational person can agree with the following items:

1. There's no way to get rid of all weapons.
2. There must be a limit to the weapons that a private citizen is allowed to possess.
3. The constitution says nothing about limits on weapons.

So, clearly we still need laws to define what the limits of the weapons that people will be allowed to have are.

The arguments about fighting against a tyrannical government are, frankly, stupid. Plenty of successful revolutions have happened in countries where the population wasn't allowed to have guns, and plenty of successful invasions of countries with high gun ownership have occurred. What weapons you're allowed to possess during times of peace will have zero impact on what happens in the event of such an event.

AdHominem says

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc

#1--fighters in those countries had more than just guns.
#2--With the exception of Vietnam(which is now 40 yrs ago), none of the people in those countries was successful.

Kevin says

1. There’s no way to get rid of all weapons.
2. There must be a limit to the weapons that a private citizen is allowed to possess.
3. The constitution says nothing about limits on weapons.

1- I agree
2- if it's legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.
3- ?

elliemae says

2- if it’s legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.

That's the hard part. What should be legal? Where to draw the line?
When you say government--do you mean military or police force?

"Only after they are able to pry open my cold, dead hand will they ever get the keys to my M1 Abrams tank."

Troy says

and you don’t have a Constitutional right to outgun the state’s police.

Bap33 says

Kevin,
you have decided the 2nd amendment does not grant Americans the right to carry a weapon, and this is becasue you say it is vauge. We disagree, completely.

Kevin says

Bap33 says
you have decided the 2nd amendment does not grant Americans the right to carry a weapon,
No, I said that there are clearly some limits (even you admit as much). We clearly have a constitutional right to possess weapons (even firearms).
There is nothing that makes your “if you can carry it” definition right. It’s simply your opinion. If we have laws that say you can’t have automatic weapons, it isn’t contradicting the “right to bear arms” any more than banning the possession of nuclear weapons is.

Again, I disagee. There are laws against murder. There are specific abilities of specific weapons. If the common threat against man were Rino attacks, then most people would carry weapons that stop Rino's. Since the most common threat to man is man, a man should carry a weapon that detours man on man crime (no pun about the Prop 8 thing ment, but I did lol at this point). An exploding projectile is not a common defense item. It is most commonly an offense use item. A proper weapon for personal use should have the ability to be aimed, and to strike a target of common need. Specificly - the most likely threat faced by the bearer of the weapon.

And to those that feel the masses can not fend off our Military ... you are mistaken. Our Military is volunteer. They will not strike at home. It will be an armed force created by someone ... lets use an armed group of Black Panthers (as just an example) that decide to not allow whites to vote (just an example) ... an armed populous can defend themselves against such a situation when the Gov has made a descision that the Black Panthers can remove a white person's right to vote ... again, just an example, any similarity to actual events are specualtion on your part (lol).

I trust the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be correct yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Now, if we shall argue about extending those rights to invaders from other lands, then lets waste no time diving into that one!! lol

ok, back to work ... Lord Barry is spending my taxes faster than I can make em. "Home Buying Credit" anybody?

Protip: never argue on the internet with crazy people

Bap--

Where to begin? You clearly are drawing a line with projectiles that explode. So as Kevin said--by your own account you already advocate a restriction on arms. Any mention of 2nd Amendment rights is hogwash. It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society. Your idea of anything that explodes is one way to go, but so is banning automatic weapons. Or semi-automatic weapons. Or handguns. etc. There is no constitutional argument to be made unless you are proposing no restrictions on "arms" at all. Letting citizens buy any weapon they choose.

Your next example is completely ridiculous. If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

Bap33 says

I trust the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be correct yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Clearly you don't though. You advocate a restriction on what "arms" a citizen can legally buy.

"It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society."

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Bap33 says

It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.”

or maybe in this case, it boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the safety of society.

What I learned from this thread, is people get pretty weird about their guns, and maybe that's okay. We need extremists negotiating that side of the argument, not well balanced types who are pragmatic and can objectively look at both sides of the issue.

hmmmm...

tatupu70 says

Your next example is completely ridiculous. If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I'm sure you saw the video. But, I'm ridiculous.

elliemae says

2- if it’s legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.

Elliemae wants to possess nuclear weapons. Somebody invade!

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

It's really scary how black people are keeping white men down. Lets march!

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc

#1–fighters in those countries had more than just guns.

#2–With the exception of Vietnam(which is now 40 yrs ago), none of the people in those countries was successful.

Tatu has once again shown why no one need bother reasoning or conversing with him. He would have us believe that since something happened 40 years ago it is no longer relevant. Furthermore he is ignoring the fact that Afghanistan outlasted the Soviets in a war that bankrupted the Soviet Union an led to its collapse. The freedom fighters in Iraq, Afganistan, Gaza, West Bank and Vietnam have and continue to stand up to "stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence" which is what I was reminding simcha as he seems to have trouble remembering these other freedom fighters (some call them insurgents, as would the American Patriots in 1776 have been similarly characterized). BTW in case you hadn't realized it, many of us here actually believe that citizens should be able to own arms more powerful than just firearms.

Kevin says

Elliemae wants to possess nuclear weapons. Somebody invade!

I wouldn't do it on a day I'm pms-ing. A bit of advice, there.

This is a quandry. There does need to be a line drawn - I don't know where. I believe that we should be able to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. But I don't believe it's necessary for me to own a fully automatic machine gun. All it takes is some minor modifications and a semi- becomes a fully auto. I don't think it's necessary. That ain't right.

I believe that we should be able to hunt animals, as long as we eat their meat. It's a way of life for some people in some places. But not if we're just gonna hang a rack over our fireplaces.

There should be a line. Somewhere. But I'll tell ya - when the police are outgunned and have to go to a gun shop to get reinforcement weapons, there's something wrong.

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

2- if it’s legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.

That’s the hard part. What should be legal? Where to draw the line?
When you say government–do you mean military or police force?

police.

AdHominem says

He would have us believe that since something happened 40 years ago it is no longer relevant. Furthermore he is ignoring the fact that Afghanistan outlasted the Soviets in a war that bankrupted the Soviet Union an led to its collapse

I wouldn't have you believe anything--just pointing out facts. And you'll also remember that both Vietnam and Afghanistan had superpowers supporting them in their victories...

AdHominem says

BTW in case you hadn’t realized it, many of us here actually believe that citizens should be able to own arms more powerful than just firearms

I realized it and it scares me...

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Bap33 says

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Huh? Are you for the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater?

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Not offended, but I would like to know what makes you feel that way. (?) I just answered your question with two examples, that's all I was doing.
tatupu70 says

If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Huh? Are you for the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater?

absolutly -- as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example.

elliemae says

I believe that we should be able to hunt animals, as long as we eat their meat. It’s a way of life for some people in some places. But not if we’re just gonna hang a rack over our fireplaces.
There should be a line. Somewhere. But I’ll tell ya - when the police are outgunned and have to go to a gun shop to get reinforcement weapons, there’s something wrong.

I agree about hunted game. Some game is just for sport though, and not for meat, and I do not agree with that on a personal/spiritual level.

The police are outgunned when facing a BAD GUY holding a SuperKiller9000. The police are better supported when standing alongside a well armed/trained GOODGUY holding a SuperKiller9000. BADGUYS like to live and will avoid (in my opinion) having to face a citizen, who does not have to be nice as policemen are, that is armed and ready to defend life and property.
Bad guys will use bats, knives, bottles, bricks, IED's, hands, cord around the neck .... them bad guys find ways to murder. They don't mind getting RPG's, or a SuperKiller9000. They are without limits. Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire?

As for drug gangs, they intimidate everyone around them ... and the action down in Mexico shows whats coming. Severed heads on stakes and mass graves. Not gonna be pretty when that starts in your town.

Bap33 says

absolutly — as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example

OK--now you're just being funny. I think you get my point. You don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater even though one might argue that it violates freedom of speech. The reason is that your freedom of speech can't infringe upon your fellow man's freedoms or endanger his safety. Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

Bap33 says

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Not offended, but I would like to know what makes you feel that way. (?) I just answered your question with two examples, that’s all I was doing.

You don't think the Gov is trying to stop the gangsters? Seems to me the police are doing the best they can...
I haven't seen the video about Black Panthers. Did they beat people in the video? Or are you implying that you would like to make it illegal to carry billy clubs? I thought you were all for 2nd Amendment rights--that suprises me.

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

absolutly — as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example

OK–now you’re just being funny. I think you get my point. You don’t have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater even though one might argue that it violates freedom of speech. The reason is that your freedom of speech can’t infringe upon your fellow man’s freedoms or endanger his safety. Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

You are 100% wrong. I can and should and would yell FIRE in a crowded theater if I felt the need to. For example, if it were ablaze, I could be held liable for not doing what I could (IE alarming others)(IE yelling FIRE). So, like I said, your point is not valid.

NO, the cops do not do "all they can" to rid America of the drug/street gangs. No even close. Lawyers make sure of that ... many from the ACLU. Gun laws ensure that only law-breakers are armed when a crime is commited.

The Black Panthers at the polls ... you honestly will say you never knew about it? Really? Google it, and then we can discuss the difference between intimidation with a weapon, body language, taunting, and the right to bear arms. Besides, just as you say the right to speach in modified in a crowded public venue (I'm pretty sure it's a riot stopper law) - in the same light there are laws about polling areas on voting day ... very very strict laws ... that THe Black Panthers were violating.

Vivia Mexifornia!!

AdHominem says

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc…

...

The freedom fighters in Iraq, Afganistan, Gaza, West Bank and Vietnam have and continue to stand up to “stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence” which is what I was reminding simcha as he seems to have trouble remembering these other freedom fighters (some call them insurgents, as would the American Patriots in 1776 have been similarly characterized).

Afghanistan: Really? The people stood up all by themselves against the Soviets and we Americans? No, they're supplied from outside of the country and supported by vast networks of arms dealers. And they don't just have hand guns and rifles. They have many of the same weapons most militaries use. And our military is severely limited in its own rules of engagement due to political pressure from the International Community. If our military were allowed to use its full force, it would be no contest.

Iraq: When did they win? Last time I checked they lost the war in 1991 and they haven't won the second one. Sure Iraq is a destabilized mess, but I wouldn't say that the people are actually able to fight American soldiers with only rifles and hand guns. They also use many weapons brought in from outside of the country that other militaries use that are illegal to own here. And our military is severely limited in its own rules of engagement due to political pressure from the International Community. If our military were allowed to use its full force, it would be no contest.

Vietnam: When did the people win anything there? Chinese backed North Vietnamese won using a full array military weapons and their army. Before we left the South Vietnamese held them off only because the American military was supplying their army and fighting on their behalf with a full complement of American military weapons. Also in this conflict American soldiers were severely restricted in the rules of engagement due to politics. If they would have been allowed to use full force with no restrictions, I suspect we would have seen a different result. However, it was still two militaries fighting one another and not "the people" fighting a military.

West Bank: Really? Are you kidding me? If Israel were actually allowed to invade using full force and they were to completely occupy the West Bank with martial law and were to drive out the "freedom fighters" there wouldn't still be a struggle in the West Bank. What keeps this conflict going on and on and on forever is that the UN and other Arab states and the International Community has made Israel their business and severely restricts what Israel can and can't do in the conflict. If Israel used it's full force, the International Community would come down hard on Israel and isolate it like North Korea. The people on the ground also use more than just hand guns and rifles. They get military grade weapons smuggled in through Syria and Jordan.

Gaza: See "West Bank" above and change "Syria and Jordan" to Egypt.

Thanks for playing. :)

And I completely agree that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are labels that are context dependent. One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist."

Bap33 says

You are 100% wrong. I can and should and would yell FIRE in a crowded theater if I felt the need to. For example, if it were ablaze, I could be held liable for not doing what I could (IE alarming others)(IE yelling FIRE). So, like I said, your point is not valid.

BAP---I'm hoping you're just playing with me, so I won't belabor the point. I'm guessing that you really get it...

And if you really think the government lets gangsters and the Black panthers terrorize US citizens--then I don't think any rational argument will convince you otherwise.

You never answered my question though--what would you say to someone who argues that the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to carry a bazooka? Doesn't it allow him to "bear arms"?

tatupu70 says

You never answered my question though–what would you say to someone who argues that the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to carry a bazooka? Doesn’t it allow him to “bear arms”?

Why not stop there? I want an anti-aircraft gun and my own nuclear silo armed with a multiple warhead ICBM. For extra protection against the gummint, I would also be sure to get a tank.

simchaland says

Also in this conflict American soldiers were severely restricted in the rules of engagement due to politics. If they would have been allowed to use full force with no restrictions, I suspect we would have seen a different result.

WRT to Vietnam, this is not the case. We'd won the war by 1971 but had nobody to hand off the peace to defend the place.

To actually win the war would require providing an indefinite on-the-ground peace-keeper role, like our ROK presence, or bringing the ground war to NVN directly, putting them on the strategic defense.

The problem with defending SVN is that its border is not something a handful of divisions can secure, it's more like geography of California, with an immense, sparsely populated interior to defend against inflitration. in familiar terms, if the DMZ was at the Oregon border, SVN would stretch down to Santa Barbara and Yuba City would be the furthest interior outpost of government control, everything past that would be Indian Country.

The actual population was concentrated in the thin coastal strip stretching in an arc 600 miles, plus the delta region which had 20% of the cropland and was largely pacified, We'd pretty much sorted the VC threat out among the population by 1970, largely by just moving people out of contested areas, making them refugees dependent on the GVN for food, plus signficant land reform in 1971-73 that gave the insurgency much of what it was fighting for.

The problem wasn't "politicians limiting our tactics", the problem was one of terrain and strategy. The war was largely fought in SVN, and all our tactics really tore the place up -- we defoliated about half the country to both interdict movement and prevent crops from growing in enemy-held areas. This made the postwar particular precarious, and the GVN overly dependent on us as a sponsor, a responsibility we largely walked away from, 1973-75.

Jungle-fighting a hundred or more miles from logistics support is no way to fight a modern war, and the Army didn't really want anything to do with it any more as it was tearing their formations up for something with zero applicability to the real war they wanted to fight in Europe.

Se we bailed on Vietnam with the job half-done in 1970-72, leaving the vast interior of Indochina still held by the communist forces, and not significantly impacting NVN's ability to reinforce and attack from this superior strategic position.

Nixon's Cambodian incursion of 1970 was a tactical success but since it was more a form of armed tourism it did not have any strategic impact. ARVN's similar attempt at armed tourism in 1971 failed spectacularly since they were outgunned, outplanned, and outled by PAVN in that area of relative communist logistical strength.

Vietnam was unwinnable without escalating the war beyond SVN, and this was something we could not do without the risk of bringing eager involvement of the PRC and SU forces into the war, and all that to preserve a dictator in Saigon of dubious democratic provenance and popular support was a strategic gamble that the System wisely backed down from.

To get our hostage airmen back, we had to agree to remove our armed presence. We could have returned in force again, but the public had largely grown tired of fighting the war for the SVNese by 1973, and the abrogation of the Peace Accord would mean any further armed action would result in losing POWs to an indefinite and very unpleasant captivity.

Complicating matters was the Russians giving Stinger-like heat-seeking missiles to PAVN. These greatly improved the ability of the ground forces to isolate remote ARVN positions from resupply and aerial fire support.

People who think the war was winnable need to understand that by 1972 PAVN owned every major battlefield where we had tried to stop them. They owned the DMZ outright, Khe Sanh, and the other major bases we had established to defend the DMZ like Con Thien and Camp Carroll. They owned A Shau Valley and the neighboring hill FSBs we had established to monitor and interdict that important logistics corridor. They owned the interior of the Central Highlands, leaving Kontum, Pleiku, and Banmethuot as isolated outposts more of a strategic liability than an asset (indeed, the loss of Banmethuot in early 1975 led to the total collapse of ARVN moral in the entire corps region).

They owned the Cambodian sanctuaries and our guy in Phnom Penh's days were numbered, despite (or perhaps because of) the immense secret strategic bombing campaign we had attempted (until Congress shut this down in 1972).

The VC may had been slaughted by 1974, but PAVN's strategic position in SVN was stronger than ever, and Thieu was f---ed without the return of at least US air support and advisers, and billions of dollars of aid to restore the morale and capability of ARVN.

But in the mid-70s the US had our own serious problems to face and saving vast stretches of jungle and some ricefields from the Communists did not have the same appeal that it had 10 years previously.

my honest answer about the Bazooka. Yes, it should be fine to own a Bazooka for home defense. Bazooka ammo would require a permit - just as most explosives require - like TNT and such. But, If a person can own their own personal use Jumbo Jet, then a Bazooka aint no biggie. That Jumbo Jet could be flown into the Super Bowl, or Vages/New York at midnight on New Years and kill lots of people. Just an example.