[archy]

A reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that you can't own a light anti-tank weapon. A mortar. A tank.

So long as the government uses tanks and other armored vehicles against its people, that's not a reasonable restriction.

Kindly note that the constitution does NOT state that the right to keep and bear small arms [exclusively]...shall not be infringed.

[robertpaulsen]

It's that kind of attitude and language that the gun control freaks love. I don't think you're helping the second amendment any.

I always thought to "bear arms" meant to carry weapons. "Arms" defined as that of the average soldier. Now you want to own a tank.

Do you know of anyone in the late 1700's,early 1800's, that personally owned a cannon? What makes you think that arms are meant to be any weapon? Seriously, I'd like to read it.