Replies

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.

I think it is an untenable position to claim the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own armaments of any category including modern tanks, aircraft, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It is a sure way to get yourself and/or this site labeled as extremist, fringe, and dangerous. It would only serve to hurt the conservative cause and allow an open field for the liberals to further restrict the 2nd Amendment. I can't see why you want to do that. It is foolishness of the first order. The fact that you are trying to tie Jim Robinson to the argument makes it more senseless.