Should everyday Americans be allowed to own and use rocket launchers to protect themselves from government armored...

Should everyday Americans be allowed to own and use rocket launchers to protect themselves from government armored vehicles?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 20K)

SHALL

Of course, why is this even a question?

of course, what kind of stupid question is that?

Sure.

Yes and they should be treated like any other gun. Illegal to shoot in city limits.

Americans CAN get rocket launchers, its just now you need explosive licenses and stamps for the fun shit which most people don't know how to get.

Stupid explosives law passed in 1970s and plastic explosives didnt get banned till 94.

No. A guided munition kills without your direct agency. And even a Carl Gustav's backblast could do irreparable harm to your neighbor's property.

Now, a high velocity gun...? Is basically just a Godzilla sized deer rifle. You have to actually aim the bugger and fire, and no chance of it going after a different target or blowing out the windows on your neighbor's Volvo. That would be fine.

/nods wisely

Attached: 2nd amendment stug.jpg (1087x781, 111K)

You can own a rocket launcher
I own one

Yep.
Dad had a construction company and the necessary ATF permits to keep DYNAMITE and blasting caps around the farm.
Was blowing up beaver dams at age 13.
Some of that stuff got sweaty as Hell in the Georgia Summers locked up in the magazine.
Looked like honey and sea salt on the wrapping.
Hate it for these kids growing up so sheltered nowadays.
Hardly anybody makes a decent potato cannon as a high school Science Project for fear of expulsion after getting arrested.

NOT

Attached: lewdkini.jpg (600x800, 403K)

You realize the price would be rather prohibitive. However, If you have the money I am sure one will find you.

>tfw no home defense Stinger missile

Attached: 1527304462411.jpg (2100x1400, 274K)

>it's legal but highly illegal if you lack the holy bible of paperwork and mound of cash for it
Yeah that's the same thing as the scenario OP suggested, you hairsplitting boomer-logic faggot.

Attached: 1548568473803.jpg (474x858, 215K)

Give me one single solitary good reason they should not

Definitely. If it were up to me, the only ban I would consider would be for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Even then, maybe with a license?

>Banning recreational nukes

Get a load of this statist

I want an M18 recoilless rifle!

Attached: Recoilless Rifle demonstration.webm (460x306, 450K)

>license?
the shall word dude the shall word license is optional

What makes a recoiless rifle recoiless?

The rocket is fired with almost all of the gasses not even touching the tube. The minor amount of movement is the friction of the exhaust gasses that do touch the tube.

I'm not sure I understand that explanation

the breech has holes in it so there is an equal amount of force in the form of a blast of gas coming out the back as there is pushing the projectile
equal forces= no recoil

yes

No. We should have short range air support and arty for that. Why just stick with ATGMs? SHALL my nigga!

Unironically yes

So did you actually read the Second Amendment or?

Yes.

Of course.
Why the hell shouldn't innocent citizens not be able to match the force of a potentially tyrannical state? Or do you want to end up in a dictatorship like us eurofags?

Attached: download.jpg (300x157, 9K)