• Tb0n3
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JebKush
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        The answer is UBI: Universal Ballistic Income

      • SuddenDownpour
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Udonezo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is what organized militias are for. Crowdfunding and rigourous oversight

      • Tb0n3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The free market is very good at reducing prices. Do you really think the price the government pays for missiles is reasonable?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.