China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000 (substack.com)
- Reference: 0181098686
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/03/24/2329218/china-is-mass-producing-hypersonic-missiles-for-99000
- Source link: https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/on-sale-now-china-is-mass-producing
> A private company in China has [2]developed hypersonic missiles that [3]cost the same as a Tesla Model X . This missile, the YKJ-1000, is [4]being marketed for sale at a reported price of $99,000 , and it's in mass production now after successful tests. That is far below what countries will spend to target and shoot down the missile if it's heading their way.
>
> Besides the low cost, they can be [5]launched from anywhere . The launcher looks like any one of the tens of millions of shipping containers floating around on the ocean, or sitting at ports, or riding along on trucks, or sitting on industrial lots. The launchers for these missiles are hiding in plain sight, in other words. Whatever tactical advantages great-power countries have in ballistics is going away, fast; 1,300 kilometers is 800 miles, and so the range is anything within 800 miles of wherever someone can send a shipping container.
To keep the price down, the missile is reportedly using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting. There are also broader savings from tapping mature supply chains and using China's large-scale civilian industrial base.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~cusco
[2] https://x.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1993158707056984359
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zEXIDJWs30
[4] https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/on-sale-now-china-is-mass-producing
[5] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3334933/chinas-dirt-cheap-hypersonic-missiles-could-upend-global-defence-markets-state-media
The new MAD? (Score:2)
In the 70s and 80s, the threat from a handful of countries was: "We can destroy everything". With developments in Russia, Ukraine, Iran and now China, the new doctrine is: "We can destroy anything"... and that's not just from a few large states, but potentially other actors who are both willing to send these things, and do not greatly have to fear retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
> In the 70s and 80s, the threat from a handful of countries was: "We can destroy everything". With developments in Russia, Ukraine, Iran and now China, the new doctrine is: "We can destroy anything"... and that's not just from a few large states, but potentially other actors who are both willing to send these things, and do not greatly have to fear retaliation.
MAD won't be a deterrent when any insane idiot with a few thousand laying around decides it's time to have some explosive, psychotic fun. It wouldn't even have to be a state actor. It could just be some rich kid thinking it'll be a fun new hobby to send a missile toward some city he's not fond of just to see what happens.
Re:The new MAD? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the range? I really doubt that this is the new MAD, but it does add a new and exciting amount of uncertainty, and increase the advantage of attack over defense.
Civilian grade? (Score:1)
You mean not price gouged by 10 companies between production and delivered at a miliatary facility? Wonder how long shipping will be on aliexpress.
Re: Civilian grade? (Score:5, Funny)
Shipping? They go at Mach 6, but collection on delivery is a bit touchy.
Temu missiles (Score:3, Funny)
You get what you pay for.
"using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting"
I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?
Re: Temu missiles (Score:1)
Otoh it is 100x cheaper, so just fire more of them.
Re: Temu missiles (Score:4, Informative)
You know of any "civilian grade" materials that won't burn up at hypersonic speeds?
This all just sounds so wildly implausible. And the main sources are propaganda outlets.
Re: Temu missiles (Score:1)
tbh idk wtf "civilian grade" even means exactly. and then again it only has to hold together for like 5 minutes lol.
i'm not taking this article all that seriously so i have no problem entertaining it at face value.
Re: (Score:2)
-> tbh idk wtf "civilian grade" even means exactly. and then again it only has to hold together for like 5 minutes lol
Chineseum, the metal crap sold through Aliexpress and other questionable quality sellers.
Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Well, any refractory ceramic would probably work fine. The difference between an "aerospace grade" refractory ceramic and a "commercial grade" refractory ceramic is probably a 1% difference in missile failure rate at a 100x increase in cost.
Re: (Score:3)
> This all just sounds so wildly implausible. And the main sources are propaganda outlets.
I too will believe it when I see it. Until then, I'll assume this is as real as the "Working Polaris Submarine!" you could find [1]advertised in the back of comic books. [wikipedia.org]
That said, the article has a point. As we're seeing in Ukraine and Iraq, drone offense is becoming cheaper and better at a rapid clip. We need to rapidly invent a way to intercept 10,000 drones. Million dollar missiles isn't it, it's probably 30,000 interceptor drones.
This kind of reminds me of the rise and falls of castles. Used to be defense
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Smith_Company
Re: (Score:1)
That is not correct, just nitpicking, though.
A simple musket does not go through plate. The projectile makes a big dent, yes. If the farmers are good in shooting, they can aim for the knees, yes. Or the visor of the helmet. If it manages to get through the chest for example, it is caught in chain mail below the plate or the Gambeson.
The death to plate was not muskets but artillery on the field. And the development of massive armies which you could not economically put into plate.
One of the last battles of p
Re: (Score:2)
Well China can produce cheaper and better electric cars, so...
Re: (Score:1)
China can do most things better than a specific country in the west.
They are in an industrial revolution, at the bleeding edge of basically every technology that is interesting: solar, batteries, lasers, manufacturing robots, material science, fusion, optical computer, quantum computers, AI/LLMs, airo and space industries and what ever.
The farking other country is waging war instead of getting its infrastructure, industry and population into shape.
Re: (Score:2)
You know of any "civilian grade" materials that won't burn up at hypersonic speeds?
Yes.
There's nothing magical about military grade stuff. The military is usually less buget constrained but not across the board.
There are "civillian grade" (whatever the fuck that means) cutting tools than can now hog out inconel while glowing orange continuously.
Also, you can you know just like buy a graphite crucible on ebay for cheap. Graphite sublimes at 3650 degrees C, which is higher than Tungsten's melting point of 342
Re: (Score:1)
> You get what you pay for. "using civilian-grade materials and widely available commercial parts, along with simpler manufacturing methods like die-casting" I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?
If you can make 100 missiles with civilian grade materials for a price of 1 missile with military grade materials, then the choice is obvious. Even with failure rate of 50 percent that would mean a total overload of any missile interception system. Just launch them in 100 batches. Especially when launch subsystem is not an issue too. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
launch 100 civilian grade hypersonic missiles at anything and you'll be lucky if 1 doesn't burn up or explode on the way.
Re: (Score:1)
Reaching hypersonic speeds and hitting the ground is not that particularly hard. ;) Hitting the target and maneuvering that's where challenge is. However if you can cast the "meteor shower" upon your enemy, single missile accuracy is no longer a big issue. When number is high enough it becomes a quality of it's own. This is the reason Israel is worrying about Iran's ballistics as you cannot shoot down ballistic missile the same way as drone or cruise missile, where you just explode an interceptor somewher
That's even scarier!! horseshoes and handgrenades (Score:4, Interesting)
For a civilized country (so excluding Russia who doesn't care about anyone's life), you probably want your adversary to have accuracy. If they're attacking your naval base in San Diego, you want it going near the naval base, not wandering into the civilian territory and bombing schools. Soldiers know how to handle attacks and typically have protocols for dealing with damages, putting out fires, evacuating the injured, etc. Daycares probably don't.
Honestly, I am more frightened of this than nuclear war. Once a power launches nukes, things escalate and escalate hard. Idiots can't handle nukes. No shitty nation like Russia or Iran will arm allied revolutionaries with nukes.
Cheap drones and missiles? They can do a lot of damage, are difficult to protect from....and yeah, these are cheap enough to arm other nations with....cheap enough to smuggle, etc.
Nations keep careful stock of their hypersonic missiles. Private companies?....not so confident they won't get a few stolen or sell to some nation who will use them to arm terrorists.
All my life, everyone has complained about the elite militaries. You think Israel and Russia and the USA are dangerous? Wait until you see the houthies waging warfare with the same gear? Soon every clueless hippie complaining about war will be longing for the day when warfare was confined to more responsible parties. As liberal as I am, recent events have made me much more aware...you can complain about the USA "military industrial complex", CIA, etc.... all you like and your complaints may even make sense in a vacuum. But now that under Trump, the USA is stepping back, you'll appreciate just how responsible we were...as other nations fill the role and you see...yeah...we did shitty things....but NOTHING compared to Russia, Iran, N Korea....hell, I'll wager that even as France and Britain ascend, they'll make us look quite good. To me complaining about the USA's military is like hearing someone complain about their iPhone when they've never used any other phone platform. If you're complaining about how Samsung does something better?...OK, legit complaint. If you're complaining that phones without cases break when you drop them on concrete from 5'?...well, you're a moron...unless an iPhone competitor somehow solves that problem...it's not an iPhone problem, it's a phone problem. Similarly...the USA did shitty things?...yeah....but nothing compared to any superpower in recorded history. Compared to our rivals, I think the USA looks quite saintly, especially our modern ones (the Soviet Union and Russia)
Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Let's do the math:
Using aerospace grade parts, you launch 100 missles, 90% of them get intercepted before reaching your target, so you get 10 strikes.
Using commercial grade parts, you launch 100 missles, 10 of them fail during launch/flight, 90% of the remainder get intercepted, so you get 9 strikes. But, because the missles are 10% of the cost of the aerospace parts, you're able to launch 10x as many, so you get 90 strikes.
Where this leads is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that math based on, numbers pulled straight from your arse? More likely you launch 100 missiles. 90 fail in flight, 9 are intercepted and one goes somewhere because its commercial grade gps either cant withstand or keep up with a hypersonic flight regime but the body has managed to not break up before it runs out of fuel. At least launching proper stuff once the enemy runs low on interceptors or you manage saturation your hit rate will sky rocket. Temu missiles probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
Both yours and the OPs numbers have a certain... fragrance.
They will work reliably (Score:2)
You don't need avionic grade electronics for something that only lasts a few minutes after firing. I worked on an air to ground missile project and the electronics were automotive grade. Also there was the bare minimum heat shielding internally too - by the time the boards had got hot enough to fry it would have hit its target anyway or the fuel would have run out so why add extra weight.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?
Well, die-casting isn't really simpler. I mean sure you can die cast pot metal at low precision cheaply. Modern die castings which are large and complex use very expensive moulds, of the sort China is now well set up to produce, what with the manufacturing base. If Lockheed-Martin is selling them for 10 million a missile, they don't have the volume for die casting.
And what's the incentive for them to reduce the price?
I'm sure these
Re: (Score:2)
They did. If you don't think military contractors build things as cheaply as they can, or that there's something magical about "military-grade" you're dreaming. They charge as much as they can because they don't have any proper competition.
Iron Dome interceptors, the Tamir missile, cost about $40-50k. Patriots are around $4 million, SM3s $10-30 million. The Tamir works fine and is that cheap because Israel is a small country with limited resources and lots of demands on those resources. Patriots and SM3s ar
Bad news for Trump and Netanyahu. (Score:5, Insightful)
The timing of this couldn't be any better for Iran. China is desperate for oil and gas due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has plenty of oil and gas and control of the Strait and must be getting desperate for missiles and launchers. I wonder how many of these missiles and launchers a tanker full of Iranian crude would buy.
Re: (Score:2)
How's a tanker going to leave? How are the missiles going to be delivered?
And do they even exist? If they do exist, do they actually work? It all sounds pretty unlikely.
Timing is off + would China want to? (Score:2)
> The timing of this couldn't be any better for Iran. China is desperate for oil and gas due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has plenty of oil and gas and control of the Strait and must be getting desperate for missiles and launchers. I wonder how many of these missiles and launchers a tanker full of Iranian crude would buy.
Legit theory, but we've already setup a decent blockade and you're also assuming this company can actually deliver. It's one thing to announce, it's quite another to deliver at scale. 2 years from now?...yeah, I can see this being a huge headache. Fortunately for us, I don't think China can get these into Iran's hands if they wanted to.
Additionally, I am not confident that China wants to arm Iran publicly. How much money does Iran have? How much will this risk their Taiwan plans? If I were in charg
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's one thing to announce, it's another to manufacture at scale. If this is real, it will be a severe threat in 5 years, perhaps a bit less.
Re: (Score:1)
How are they going to get there?
yes yes lasers (Score:2)
Yes there are some laser counter measures being tested, but there is no way we are going to be able to reliably swat down handfuls of these things arriving on target at once.
Once they are cheap enough and China decides they are willing to sell them to anti-western regimes, the era of the air-craft carrier as a means of force projection is over. It won't be possible to park anything that big in hostile waters, at least without total sat-nav jamming in effect.
Everyone one bitching about Iran right now, needs
Why is it relevant to point out it costs the same (Score:2)
Why is it relevant to point out it costs the same as a Model X. Is this some kind of anti musk propaganda BS? What's next ? All the rapists in US jails weigh the same as 10,000 Ford F150's ?
Re: Why is it relevant to point out it costs the s (Score:4, Informative)
Stand down soldier. It's not an attack on your precious Lord Musk, but simply a rhetorical technique to convey the cost in relatable terms, e.g. to emphasize that these missiles are within the means of affluent consumers. Reporters do this all the time, and yes, many such measurement analogies are arbitrary and silly.
Re: (Score:2)
what about elephants ? no one knows how much a model X weighs
Re: (Score:2)
You sure do feel called out.
Alternative to nuclear deterrent (Score:2)
This is an interestingly less expensive deterrent for middle powers to buy (or develop themselves) who don't want to invest in a nuclear program to keep the larger countries at bay. I actually see this as a positive because it offers an alternative to nuclear proliferation. With current technology, a barrage of missiles like this can't be intercepted cost effectively, and you can hide them relatively easily. It has a chance to maintain a peaceful status quo, and perhaps avoid the looming WW3.
To give you
Re: (Score:2)
Calling that a deterrent is whitewashing it. A hypersonic missile is an attack weapon unless it is specifically an anti-missile missile. It's most highly useful in first strike situations.
$9000 on TEMU (Score:2)
Including tariffs...
$99,000 ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. PLEASE REMOVE POST. (Score:5, Informative)
Even the company's own PR *back in NOVEMBER* says that $99,000 figure is not true.
> A publicity officer with the firm told China Daily on Friday that claims by many internet users that the manufacturing price of each YKJ-1000 missile is only 700,000 yuan ($99,000) "are not true".
Chinese State News: [1]https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/... [chinadaily.com.cn]
[1] https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/29/WS692a3a81a310d6866eb2c053.html
Re: (Score:1)
good article.
also I like how the battle group in the lead graphic is shown heading straight toward Taiwan. definitely not subtle who the message is targeting.
Color me skeptical. (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Hypersonic missiles for $100k? I don't believe it. Nor do I believe either of the propaganda outlets quoted (Kevin Walmsley and SCMP).
I'm betting it's either a straight up scam or an attempt to panic Western militaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Large amateur rockets can achieve >Mach5 , which qualifies as hypersonic. You could probably build something like that for
You couldn't build, transport, and launch one for that kind of money - the ground infrastructure and permitting would be onerous and expensive.
Nor do amateur rockets carry munitions in hypersonic glide vehicles. So that part is worthy of skepticism.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it happening. Amateur high power rocketry enthusiasts have already done a lot of this. Obviously this is still an order of magnitude harder than what the amateur guys have done, but if a group of amateurs have had these successes, there's no reason a well funded company could put it all together in a package, especially if they're being helped by the state.
[1]Amateur rocket with waypoint guidance [youtube.com]
[2]Amateur rocket that reached 385,000' at 3,500MPH [youtube.com] launched by the [3]Civilian Space eXploration Team [wikipedia.org]. Towards
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm_ZL623Lzg
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceCnJLwMdFk
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Space_eXploration_Team
Sweet! (Score:2)
As an aspiring megalomaniac who just watched a super-villan movie, I'll take two. But, I might need more if the protagonist ruins my initial infallible plans.
The military industrial complex (Score:4, Interesting)
Is how America keeps its economy from collapsing. We've known this for years Eisenhower talked about it.
Voters will not accept socialism or giving money to people who didn't suffer for it. If you get anything good in life American puritanicalism dictates that you should be hurt in proportion to that. It's kind of like those old Star wars novels with the Yuuzhan Vong. Including the part about how the ruling class doesn't actually engage in the pain.
It goes back to the basic animal concepts of fairness. You see somebody get something and they didn't work as hard or suffer as much to get it as you did and you immediately get angry. It's a knee-jerk reaction that appears to be programmed into mammals and maybe even some birds and reptiles.
So getting back to the point in order to keep the American economy functional after world War II we set up a military industrial complex that guaranteed a certain number of cushy high-paying jobs for some Americans and so they could spend that money in the economy. As an added bonus America got to project Force and build an empire with all the benefits including various forms of tribute and several members of the ruling class got to get even wealthier off selling weapons. Because as always most of the money went to the top.
So that's why China can make missiles cheap. It's not just that they are making them cheap it's that they're telling us what the actual cost is.
Too long didn't read giant military is how America does socialism. And as usual it's the least efficient way to do something so we Americans are all in on it
And by now China is way way better (Score:1)
Than America because in America everything has been taken over by the Epstein class while China has no such thing
[1]https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
At least as long as Donald Trump is in the white house. I think we all know the American news media is captured by right wing, pro billionaire, pro Epstein class sources. It's just some of us seem to be okay with that because of reasons... It seems like about 40% of the country has just given up on objective reality. Eventually there will be consequences for that
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23945646&cid=66052268
Ukraine (Score:2)
Could be their biggest export customer!
Next step, laser defence (Score:2)
We're not quite there yet but we're pretty close to wide spread practical laser defense systems to shoot down missiles. I know the Israeli's added laser systems to their Iron Dome for instance. These systems will be far more accurate than current systems and should be able to be used at a fraction of the cost of even these missiles
awesome (Score:1)
this is just what we need right now. and the hits just keep on comin.....
Propaganda - de-lied (Score:2)
1) It is true that a real hypersonic missile is very expensive to shoot down. These are not them. Real 'hypersonic missiles" do not just travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, they can also TURN at speeds greater Mach 5. The ability to turn at such a high speed makes them very difficult to shoot down. China is NOT making missiles that can turn at Mach 5 for less than $100,000 Instead these are missiles that can reach speeds of Mach 5, but cannot significantly turn at those speeds. They travel in very
Re: (Score:2)
One of these will be easily shot down. The question is what happens if they launch 500 at once? You can't do that with the fancy stuff that costs millions a pop.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting thoughts ...
However something traveling at mach5 is not easy to shot down
No idea what you mean with "turn" obviously the missiles can change direction, if they can do a 180 degrees turn: no idea, why would they need that?
Suppose the missile is flying low, radar around the target won't pick it up. You need an AWACS kind of system. Which ATM does not guide missiles, it guides fighter jets.
Do the math, it comes in at mach 5 - that is in laymen terms 5000km per hour, that is 1400meters per second, o
Solved (Score:2)
Step 1: Fund a reliable agent. Give him or her wads of cash to pose as a 3rd world actor.
Step 2: Buy a bunch of these. $1M gets you ten so that should be enough.
Step 3, From the middle of the ocean, program them with the coordinates of the hypersonic missle factory and inventory warehouses.
Step 4. Fire. Disappear.
Step 5. CPP says no more of that.
Crisis over.
Cost (Score:2)
In the olden days, it cost a lot of money to shoot down an anti-ship missile. Either a CWIS firing expensive ammunition at thousands of rounds per second, or firing a pricey RAM.
It isn't the olden days any more. Now they drop missiles using a giant microwave. It costs almost nothing to fire.
[1]https://thedefensepost.com/202... [thedefensepost.com]
[1] https://thedefensepost.com/2024/04/02/us-navy-microwave-weapon/
China Doesn't Get It (Score:2)
If the missiles are that cheap, they can't power a Military Industrial Complex that operates as a conveyor belt to transfer tax money paid disproportionately by the poor into the accounts of corporate oligarchs. Think, China, think!
Before we get our panties in twist, read (Score:2)
At least the summary only contains clips from youtube, X-thingy, and South China Morning Post. I think we want to wait until we see demos, and no sneaky AI demos.
too bad (Score:4, Funny)
I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
Available on Temu? (Score:3)
If you spin the wheel on Temu you can get a 20% discount with free shipping if your order is over $100,000.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I'd want to be the poor guy firing that cheap-ass missile. China has zero concern for their [1]soldiers and citizens well-being. [cnn.com]
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/china/china-rocket-debris-falls-over-village-intl-hnk
Re: (Score:2)
Flexing your arsenal is pretty [1]standard practice [msn.com] for these aggressive, territorial nations.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-tests-doomsday-missile-off-california-coast-as-war-in-iran-rages-verify-the-effectiveness/ar-AA1Xyawn
Re: (Score:2)
I think this should be one of the RARE times the US takes full advantage of of China's market and economical manufacturing capabitlies.....
We should buy a TON of these things....and set them all up aimed at China.
And if China gets out of line....we find out what their "return policy" is....
;)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fret about it, I heard for an extra $50, a fire control officer is included to push the buttons for you. ;-)
Re:too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
> I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
> What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
The Second Amendment contains the wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Now, which well-regulated Militia are you a part of? ICE doesn't count as it is more or less a gang of thugs with little training and is certainly not well-regulated. A National Guard would count. The Amendment was written at a time when militias of the U.S. lived in their homes from whence they set to militia or whatever they did. We do not let National Guard troops keep their weapons at home.
In addition, the Amendment was written at a time when muzzle loading arms were state of the art, not machine guns or pistols with large clips. And, the states were sparsely populated so one needed a gun to fight off the critters who were looking for a meal after we pushed them out of their habitat and Native Americans after we pushed them out of their habitat.
It isn't that we think gun-lovers are going to go ape-shit and shoot everyone around them, it is that a proportion of gun-lovers will do this. Which ones? Why you just have to ask them. And that is why I do not wish you to have a gun. I don't trust you.
Re: too bad (Score:3)
That is because the term regulated didnt mean that back then. One of the problems with a living language. Go look it up this is widely known.
Re: (Score:2)
"But history confirms that 'well regulated' has always meant regulated by the government."
[1]https://www.law.georgetown.edu... [georgetown.edu]
[1] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2021/07/McCord-Dispelling-the-Myth-of-the-Second-Amendment.pdf
Re: too bad (Score:1)
If owning a hypersonic missile is a crime, then only criminals will own hypersonic missiles!
Re: (Score:2)
There will be people here and elsewhere that will point out your position is totally invalid because of your use of the word "clip" instead of "magazine."
... just so you understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! I have an M1 Garand, you insensitive clod! (Also a Mosin Nagant and Italian Carcano, both of which use clips, but that's neither here nor there...)
Re: (Score:2)
The rights under the Second Amendment are not unlimited, and even the conservative Supreme Court rulings of the past have held this view (see: [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... [cornell.edu]). Hypersonic missile ownership could clearly be prohibited under the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gun rights activists often ignore the fact that the government IS allowed to limit access to some weapons, which I think is what the parent is trying to point out.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/the-heller-decision-and-individual-right-to-firearms
Re: (Score:2)
You're being practical, not logical. Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted. AFAIK, it's never been interpreted that way by the courts.
There are lots of other places where the clear logical meaning of the US Constitution is always ignored. Often for very sound reasons.
This happens also in LOTS of other parts of the legal system. If an AI ever starts interpreting and enforcing the laws in a literal fashion nearly everyone is going to be hurt. (Sometimes t
Re: (Score:2)
> Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted.
I am not a lawyer, but this question of what a law "implies" is the basis of most disagreement in the law.
For example, consider the statement: "Government shall not infringe upon the right to bear arms." (This is not what the 2A says, but let's just work with this statement for sake of my argument). A literal interpretation, with no attempt to "imply" what those who wrote the law intended, would mean that government cannot block any ownership of any weapon for any person. Yet, others might point out that
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly restricting protests to "free speech zones" meets the constitution's First Amendment intent, according to the current crop of Supremes.
Re: (Score:2)
2A folks want an un regulated militia. Which is quite possible to have, they'd have to amend the Constitution first if that's what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.
If you want to go back to the times of the founders, many of the colonies and later states had laws regulating ownership, carry and storage of weapons;. some required a regular muster of citizens as well. "Original intent" if you will, might indicate that the 2cd was not intended to prevent any government regulation of weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
When the Constitution was written a "well regulated militia" could mean a group of farmers armed with whatever they had directed by someone with some military experience. It wasn't groups of people in uniform marching in ranks, a lot of them wouldn't even had real shoes.
The reason it just says "arms" with no specifications as to what type of weapons is because they didn't envision machine guns and cluster bombs. Merchants traveled in convoys guarded by mercs because of bandits, many private ships were bet
Re: (Score:2)
> I would love to grab a few to play around with but unfortunately the nanny state libs don't understand the Second Amendment!
I would start with a lease, first. Then, once you live with it for a few months, you can decide later if you want to buy.