[af_vet_1981]

You're the one who wants to restrict it. I see nothing wrong with an individual owning a tank if he wants one (and can afford one). Since the founding fathers issued "letters of marque and reprisal" commissioning what at the time was equivalent to private battleships neither did they.

Your position is untenable. I assume the vast majority of law-abiding and competent gun owners don't share it. It is a shame that liberals are able to find viewpoints like yours to further restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of responsible citizens whom we need to safeguard our liberty.

[tpaine]

from occupied ga
You're the one who wants to restrict it. I see nothing wrong with an individual owning a tank if he wants one (and can afford one). Since the founding fathers issued "letters of marque and reprisal" commissioning what at the time was equivalent to private battleships neither did they.

______________________________________

Your position is untenable. I assume the vast majority of law-abiding and competent gun owners don't share it. It is a shame that liberals are able to find viewpoints like yours to further restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of responsible citizens whom we need to safeguard our liberty.
342 -vet?-

---

'Vet', you really should tell the owner of this forum about his untenable positions:


"Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.
As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
__________________________________________


BTW, -- It is prefectly legal to own a tank..
A fella few miles away in Woodside CA owns on of the largest private collections in the world, and drives them around on his ranch regularily.

[from occupied ga]

Your position is untenable. I assume the vast majority of law-abiding and competent gun owners don't share it

I see, you as the sole arbiter of what is "tenable" and not have declared my position untenable. Further you as the self-anointed representative of the majority of gun owners has spoken for the rest of them.

Sorry buddy, but your incessant braying** about more restrictions has shown you for what you are - a liberal statist at heart. like I said you are known by the company you keep and you're right in there with Feinstein, Schumer, Pol Pot Waxman, Rangel and the rest of the neo_nazi Democrats and socialist dictators.

**It' s no concidence that the symbol for the democrats is a jackass, and you're echoing DU type sentiments