The Right to Own a Bazooka

Peter Bagge from the August/September 2007 issue

Page 2

Comments

|8.16.07 @ 12:23PM|#

And as for that old "Bazooka" argument: If I don't hurt, threaten, or disturb anyone with it, then why can't I own one?

Well it's kind of like the reason you can't drive drunk even if you don't speed, cut off, or hit anyone.

The fact that the second amendment is about defending yourself against your own government, and the fact that you can't mount a credible defense without a bazooka, is why I think the second amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed.

Not that anyone agrees with me.

|8.16.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Bagge's a wimp. If he really wanted to do an extreme defense of the Second Amendment, he'd advocate the ownership of nuclear weapons by private individuals.

After all, as long as they don't actually detonate them then what's the problem?

|8.16.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Dan, you might want to RTFC before posting about its shortcomings.

Seer|8.16.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Very entertaining. I think that the right to own a bazooka also has more to do with defense against government as a reason to own one.

|8.16.07 @ 12:38PM|#

Dan, you might want to RTFC before posting about its shortcomings.

I read as much of it as I could, believe me.

Generally, the appeal of an editoral cartoon is that it expresses an idea quickly and cleverly using pictures in place of too many words. Bagge's work is more like a written column illustrated with pictures. A really convoluted one in this case.

|8.16.07 @ 12:40PM|#

Hey Dan, what does the "T" stand for?

As if we didn't already bleeding know.

|8.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Okay, Jake, I did read the rest of Bagge's cartoon.

He does address the nuclear missle "red herring" by making the seriously stupid argument that one's next door neighbor probably won't be able to get one, since even the nation of Iran cannot.

Well, I'm not worried about my next door neighbor. But of course there are people out there with enough money to purchase one if they legally bought and sold on the free market.

And besides, this is about the right to own any sort of arm, not the ability to procure one.

|8.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

Edit: "...if they could be legally bought and sold on the free market."

Daniel|8.16.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Bazookas for some, miniature American flags for others.

Daniel

|8.16.07 @ 12:48PM|#

I would like to go on record as saying Peter Bagge is the dullest cartoonist ever.

Family Circus dull.

|8.16.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Ha! I finally figured out what "RTFC" stands for!

Read the Fucking Column?

jimmy|8.16.07 @ 12:51PM|#

peter bagge is a national treasure, and the best part of reason magazine. i don't care if his politics aren't 100% libertarianly correct, or if he pisses off the terrorist-coddling crackpots and occasional misplaced commie-lib in this forum. he makes me laugh and gives me good material to email to my statist friends.

|8.16.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Neu,
Huh? Are you kidding? Do you stand by that?

|8.16.07 @ 12:58PM|#

RE: Owning a tank.
I've come across guys who own old World War II bombers and I think the governator used to own a tank. What exactly is the legality of war vehicals, and bazookas for that matter? I am pretty sure there are at least some (crazed) hobbists out there with a rocket launcher.

|8.16.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Warren,

Yeah.

And I'll go farther...

Ziggy dull.

S.A. Miller|8.16.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Read the Fucking Column?

Cartoon...

Libertarian n00b|8.16.07 @ 1:15PM|#

What exactly is the legality of war vehicals, and bazookas for that matter?

I think bazookas and fully automatic machine guns are classified as destructive devices and you need a special license from the ATF (and perhaps special permission from state and local authourities).

I'm not sure of the hoops one has to go through in order to own a tank, other than the weapons on board need to be rendered incapable of firing. IIRC, this is done by the military before it is sold to a private collector.

|8.16.07 @ 1:16PM|#

He does address the nuclear missle "red herring" by making the seriously stupid argument that ...

Pot. Meet Kettle.

D. Greene|8.16.07 @ 1:29PM|#

It is a very good thing I finished drinking my coffee before I got to the 4th page of that comic. The bit with the Canadian slayed me.

|8.16.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Dan T. is a failure even as a troll. If he really wanted to have a provocative discussion about the 2nd Amendment, he could have brought up the issue of ownership of nuclear weapons by private individuals.

|8.16.07 @ 1:47PM|#

What? Did I read Dan T.'s comments before commenting on them?

Of course. Well, I read as much of them as I could, believe me.

|8.16.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Taktix:

S.A. Miller is correct - I meant the C to stand for "cartoon." (Admittedly, I was stepping outside the standard RTF canon.)

dhex|8.16.07 @ 1:54PM|#

I would like to go on record as saying Peter Bagge is the dullest cartoonist ever.

man you are so totally dead to me.

also you're forgetting garfield and mary worth and that prince valiant guy that always confused me as a kid.

|8.16.07 @ 2:02PM|#

NM,

Finally something we agree on; Bagge's cartoons are dull. I have to admit that I am not much of a cartoon fan though, so my opinion on Bagge is irrelevant, even to me.

I am an avid defender of the 2nd though. Yes, it is an individual right. If you read the text of the second and the history that surrounds it and come to a different conclusion then either you don't comprehend what you read, or you can't bring yourself to deal with reality.

|8.16.07 @ 2:05PM|#

What? Did I read Dan T.'s comments before commenting on them?

Of course. Well, I read as much of them as I could, believe me.


Stevo, you are fucking smart aleck, which around here is a good thing :-).

|8.16.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Who's "smart aleck"? Is she cute? Spill the beans, Stevo!

|8.16.07 @ 2:10PM|#

oops... a typo.

|8.16.07 @ 2:20PM|#

I wonder why he thinks it is tragic that people leave guns where kids can get them. (Last page first frame. I RTFC) I leave electricity and chemicals around the house where my 12 year old can get them. I want my kid to be able to get to her gun and defend herself if necessary as easily as she plugs in her hair dryer. She is trained in how to do both and knows the dangers of both. No big deal.

|8.16.07 @ 3:08PM|#

The difference between a bazooka and a nuclear weapon is that the nuclear weapon is designed to inflict maximum collateral damage on a surrounding civilian population, a bazooka is not. If the military is terrorizing a neighborhood with a bazooka, it would not be difficult to retaliate likewise. A nuclear weapon makes that impossible. Now how to reconcile that difference with the 2nd amendment is up for debate.

|8.16.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Let's just say we'll discuss the nukes issue as soon as we reclaim the right to own automatic weapons, hand grenades, magazines bigger than a dozen rounds, etc.

The "since nukes are clearly bad, everything else must be banned, too" argument is like saying, "because Rottweilers trained to rip out an intruder's throat are dangerous, we're gonna have to confiscate your fluffy little miniature poodle, because clearly all dogs are unsafe to own."

|8.16.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Wayne,

If you read the text of the second and the history that surrounds it and come to a different conclusion [than Wayne] then either you don't comprehend what you read, or you can't bring yourself to deal with [Wayne's view of ]reality.

|8.16.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Afghanistan has managed to fight off the USSR and, I predict, will manage to fight off the USA as well, without a nuclear arsenal. The problem is I think my government would like to disarm me of ANY weapon that could be effective against it. From RPG's to handguns. Nukes don't even come in to the equation.
Side question: Has any country that has nukes ever been invaded and taken over?

|8.16.07 @ 3:33PM|#

For the record, I find it hard to deal with the overly simplistic view of reality that Wayne carries around in his head.

|8.16.07 @ 5:51PM|#

Bagge's a wimp. If he really wanted to do an extreme defense of the Second Amendment, he'd advocate the ownership of nuclear weapons by private individuals.

Dan T,

Nuclear weapons are a red herring. I believe it should be illegal for your neighbors AND the government to own nuclear weapons... in the same way it should be illegal for the government and your neighbor to torture people. Understand?

We support the right of citizens to own any weapon that our government owns. If a weapon is so terribly dangerous that you can't trust your neighbor with it, then you probably shouldn't trust your government with it either, because theoreticly in a Democracy the government is supposed to BE you and your neighbors.

|8.16.07 @ 9:16PM|#

I follow the rules around here.
I just hit and run.
Is Dan T a troll?
I wouldn't know.
I'm not a troll.
Anyone who wants to endure the maintenance of it, I hope has a nuclear weapon in their garage.

Why do nothing but anal pussies float at a blog site like this?

Is this Davy Crockett's Amurika?
Evidently not.

LarryA|8.17.07 @ 12:33AM|#

The fact that the second amendment is about defending yourself against your own government, and the fact that you can't mount a credible defense without a bazooka, is why I think the second amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed.

Half a million combat soldiers (maybe) against 80 million gun owners? When a good percentage of the warfighters are outside the US? I'd hate to be back on active duty and have to face those odds.

Sure, maybe all the gun owners wouldn't show up. But you might be amazed how many soldiers remember that they took an oath to protect the Constitution, not the government. Orders to fire on their families would be very unpopular. Then there's the question of which side the National Guard (and all their equipment) would end up on.

There is simply no way Congress or the officer corps could declare national martial law and get away with it, except by first disarming the people.

Or you could look at it this way. The US military is finding it impossible to pacify Iraq, which is only a little bigger than California. They'd be spread very thin, stretched over the whole fifty states.

I'm not sure of the hoops one has to go through in order to own a tank, other than the weapons on board need to be rendered incapable of firing. IIRC, this is done by the military before it is sold to a private collector.

The tank itself is no problem. As far as the weapons, they can be licensed if you have the money for the taxes. James Garner did. Or, of course, you can get them free if you have a badge. It might be interesting to do a force comparison between the Army and law enforcement.

Has any country that has nukes ever been invaded and taken over?

USSR. By McDonalds.

megs|8.17.07 @ 10:16AM|#

This thread is full of win, to speak as if I'm on the internet for a second. And Peter Bagge is terrific. I kind of like his hands-off approach to tackling a topic (no-touch football?), as cartoons make it very easy to present a point of view that's very hard to argue with, what with your ability to control words and images and make a point with even the expression you put on the face of a caricature of an opinion.

|8.19.07 @ 2:06AM|#

Neu Mejican is the dullest commentator ever. Mainstream Man dull.

|11.15.09 @ 10:13PM|#

I notice Bagge compared the US to every country except its neighbour to the North. Canada has pretty much the same culture as far as movies, video games, etc. but we have a much lower murder and suicide rate......but hey, that couldn't be because of gun control right?