@freemo Agreed, MANPADS as well. In every recent people vs state war, having such AA and AT rockets made all the difference. USA refused to supply them to Iraqi rebels and Iraq wiped the rebels out with helicopters.

Now the practicalities: they cost as much as a car per shot, and don't differentiate between armored limos, airliners, and military targets.

Where to store them? Who owns them? How to train with them? A local armoury would make sense, with two person access by the citizens.

@mike805 Every neighboorhood could create a pool where every person contributes a few hundred and they keep a rocket silo in the center of town :)

@freemo Joking aside, that was how the colonials dealt with gunpowder. They had a central powder magazine, and the redcoats attempting to seize those kicked the whole thing off.

@freemo For people who complain about dangerous objects, it comes in handy to point out the early 20th century.

You could buy dynamite at the hardware store, buy opium or cyanide at the drug store, and order a machine gun through the mail.

And yet society was more peaceful than it is today, at least until radicals from the failed 1905 Russian revolution started showing up here. Whatever has gone wrong, it isn't dangerous objects.

@mike805 People dont realize that all those things are still very accessible for someone who doesnt care about the law. Any schmuck can make a fully auto weapon or extract any of those chemicals with minimal effort.

@freemo Fortunately "Bond villains" or people who are willing and able to spend a long period of focussed, intelligent effort planning something evil, are relatively rare. Anders Breivik comes to mind, and he published a very detailed how to journal. So far as I know, nobody has followed his formula.

I just think the fear of dangerous objects thing has gotten absurd. In the UK you can get an actual court order forbidding you to own a kitchen knife.

@freemo Wouldn't siege weapons, like ballistas and catapults and siege towers, which are mobile heavy weapons platforms designed to protect their operators, be the medieval equivalent of tanks?

@freemo And, ironically, if they are, then the best defense against them was typically fire arrows, and the modern equivalent, flamethrowers, *are* federally legal.

@LouisIngenthron @freemo Siege engines were artillery. They were replaced by bombards, large caliber artillery, when gunpowder was available in quantity.

A fair number of Civil War reenactors own cannons, those are legal too.

@mike805 @freemo That may apply to catapults and ballistas, but things like siege towers and battering rams are still much more analogous to tanks.

@LouisIngenthron I am all for any interpretation which lets me buy the most and biggest weapons :)

@freemo sorry sir, don't mind me, I'm just here stealing your meme

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.