Air Parity Now
"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."
THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NO CEILING
Without air defense, a Second Amendment is just a Second Amendment against ground targets.
The Argument They Can't Answer
A Stinger missile is, at it's core, a tube that fires a projectile. That is the exact same principle as every other firearm in existence. You load a projectile. You point the tube. You fire. The fact that this particular projectile goes UP instead of forward and then guides itself to a heat source — that is not a philosophical difference. That is an engineering preference.
The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the AR-15 either. Or the semi-automatic pistol. Or the suppressor. We extend Second Amendment protections to all of those because the PRINCIPLE transcends the specific technology. The principle is: CITIZENS MUST BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THREATS. And threats — as any honest person must acknowledge — CAN COME FROM THE SKY.
Castle doctrine. We all know it. Your home is your castle. You have the right to use deadly force to defend your property. In 38 states you have no duty to retreat. If a criminal breaks into your home, you can shoot them. That is settled American law and we are proud of it.
Now here's the question they can't answer: WHY DOES CASTLE DOCTRINE STOP AT YOUR ROOF?
Your property does not end at ground level. Under established property law, a landowner has rights extending into the airspace above their land — up to a "reasonable height" which courts have defined as the area of normal use. That's YOUR airspace. When a drone — operated by a neighbor, a corporation, a government agency, a stalker, WHOEVER — enters the airspace above your property without your permission, it is TRESPASSING. You would be legally justified in shooting a human trespasser. Why is this any different?
They say: "A Stinger could hit a passenger plane." And I say: so could any round from any firearm if the plane is close enough. We don't ban rifles because of that. We expect RESPONSIBLE OWNERS to exercise their rights responsibly. I am a responsible person. I am not going to fire a heat-seeking missile at a commercial airliner. I am going to fire it at the GOVERNMENT DRONE that has been circling my property since Tuesday.
In 1986, the United States government supplied FIM-92 Stingers to the Afghan Mujahideen. Within months, those fighters began shooting down Soviet Hind helicopter gunships — the most feared close-support aircraft in the Soviet arsenal. The Stingers changed the entire balance of that war. The government KNOWS what this weapon does for a civilian population trying to resist a better-armed military force.
They gave Stingers to the Afghans. They won't give them to YOU. Think about why that is.
If you can shoot a trespasser on your land, you can shoot a drone in your sky.
The Facts They Don't Want You to Know
The FIM-92 Stinger is a rocket with a propellant charge well over 4 ounces. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f), that makes it a destructive device under the National Firearms Act. The NFA already has a legal framework for registering destructive devices. Tank cannons. Grenade launchers. Bazookas. Pre-1986 registered examples exist in civilian hands RIGHT NOW. The Stinger should be no different.
Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 2332g specifically to prohibit civilian ownership of MANPADs. A SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL FEDERAL STATUTE. On top of all existing gun laws. They didn't just leave it under the NFA framework like every other destructive device. They wrote a whole new law just for this one weapon. Why? Because they know exactly what it means for the air superiority balance. That is not a safety decision. That is a POWER DECISION.
The United States military inventory includes approximately 11,000 FIM-92 Stingers. Eleven thousand. The government has eleven thousand of these missiles in storage right now while telling you that you having ONE is a threat to public safety. Eleven thousand to zero. That is the air parity gap in one number.
A Stinger missile unit weighs approximately 34 pounds. For comparison, a fully loaded AR-15 with scope and extra magazines weighs roughly the same. This is not a heavy weapons platform. This is a man-portable system that was literally designed to be operated by one person, in the field, under fire. It is a PERSONAL WEAPON. The Second Amendment protects personal weapons.
The Stinger uses passive infrared homing — it tracks heat. It fires and then guides itself. You point it in the general direction of the threat, you pull the trigger, and it does the rest. This is actually MORE user-friendly than most conventional firearms, which require precise aim and continuous trigger control. If user-friendliness is an argument for restricting a firearm, the AR-15 should worry more than the Stinger.
In 1986, the U.S. supplied Stingers to Afghan rebels fighting Soviet military forces. American Stingers shot down Soviet Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships — vehicles flying in support of a government engaged in military operations against it's own region. The U.S. government made a conscious choice: that a civilian population facing military air power SHOULD have the right to shoot back. We agree. We just think that right should extend to AMERICANS TOO.
The FAA regulates navigable airspace as public airspace above roughly 500 feet over congested areas and 83 feet over open land. But a drone hovering at 80 feet above your backyard? That is YOUR airspace. Courts have increasingly recognized property owner rights in low-altitude airspace. The Castle Doctrine protects your property. The law has just been SLOW to acknowledge that property goes UP as well as out.
A single FIM-92 Stinger costs approximately $120,000 to $200,000. For context: the average American spends more than that on a car over their lifetime. We do not require a federal license to buy a car. We do not require a six-month waiting period to take delivery of a car. We do not pass specific federal statutes outlawing car ownership. And cars kill 40,000 Americans a year. Stingers owned by civilians: zero deaths. EVER.
The Second Amendment's purpose — per the Federalist Papers, per Madison, per every constitutional scholar who isn't on government payroll — is to ensure that citizens can resist tyranny. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46 that Americans possessed "the advantage of being armed" unlike citizens of other nations, and that this made tyranny impossible. He was writing about rifles then. He would be writing about WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW if he were writing today. The government has jets. Madison would have wanted you to have a Stinger.
"A man without air defense isn't a free man. He's just a man who hasn't been visited yet."
— Steve Hendricks, Absolute Second Amendment Foundation