> even though that is a direct personal safety risk

Is he worried about his haters getting a hold of anti-air weaponry or something?

I am not sure, but the people he points the finger at are getting death threats for doing their jobs:

https://www.thewrap.com/yoel-roth-twitter-elon-musk-death-th...

I legitimately wonder if there's a limiting principal the modern Supreme Court would accept to ban private ownership of a MANPAD.

A MANPAD would already be classified as a destructive device and I doubt you could even find licensed dealer who has one. Since it needs a stamp from the ATF and a licensed dealer needs to handle the transfer, they are effectively already banned.

> they are effectively already banned

And do you think that is consistent with an originalist view of the 2nd amendment?

Depends on how you interpret the 2nd amendment. Different originalist justices will interpret it differently. The current court in their most recent 2nd amendment ruling indicates that their new test will allow many current gun regulations to stand.

If the current conservative justices believe any weapons at all should can be banned (which they said they do—of course they could always be lying) then you have to think they believe a MANPAD can.

> Different originalist justices will interpret it differently.

I detect some irony.

But I will say I'm not trying to be clever here and ask some sort of leading questions - I really just wonder what limits there actually are now. I doubt any of the federal weapons laws of the 20th century could be passed and deemed constitutional here in the 21st. But if they make full-auto small arms as easy to buy as semi-auto, I'd definitely pick something up.

Suppose you manufactured/assembled one yourself.

I know you can’t manufacture an automatic weapon without a license from the ATF. I don’t know specifically about destructive devices. It is illegal to manufacture explosives, and you can’t transfer explosives to an unlicensed person.

So my guess is no, not without a license that you aren’t going to get unless you have a legitimate business interest, e.g., manufacturing them to sell the the military.

I'll tale one of those Gepard AA tanks, once Ukraine doesn't need them anymore. You can drive one those to Walmart for weekly groccery shopping! And you propably din't need a concealed carry liscence.

Edit: I once saw people live firing WW2 anti-tank artillery somewhere in Nevada or some similar, desert-ish place. So, if a modern Gepard is out of the question, maybe a WW2 8.8 flak cannon would qualify as a historical collection piece?

Tangentially related, the Washington department of transportation has M60 tanks used for avalanche control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA

Laser pointer is more than enough to endanger an aircraft.

True, by the way do you have some sort of alert or just happened upon this thread? (Re: the topicality of your username)

He created it for the thread.

For some fairly absurd definitions of "endanger", yeah.

It's enough to force an emergency landing, yeah. And that endangers the whole air traffic around by putting it into non-standard situation, yeah. You have some fairly absurd definition of "absurd".

As long as we're talking about regular laser pointers, at worst this mildly inconveniences the pilot.

There have been tens of recorded cases of this every day for decades in the US alone, but not a single recorded accident.

The idea that someone could meaningfully endanger Elon by pointing a laser pointer at his private jet is pants-on-head crazy. What next? Oil slicks on his driveway? Perhaps slowly poison him by idling a car in front of his house? Second hand smoking?

It's really not enough, no. There are literally videos of pilots blocking the light with a piece of paper.

No, Musk only said that in an effort to make himself look like a tough guy with principles. But in the end he's merely a hypocrite.