Then I should have a right to carry a very large car bomb. I should have the right to drive a tank. I should have the right to own a backyard anti-aircraft battery.
If you, and the majority of citizens of you state think that is what is necessary to secure your security. As I understand the situation in Ca., the State Constitution has no protection for the right to keep and bear arms. Given the phrasing of the Second Amendment, I have to wonder what posessed Congress to vote to allow into the Union a state that would willingly compromise it's own freedom and security by failing to protect that right.
Why should I NOT have the right to these things? Rights are not limited, save through the due process of law on a case by case basis. What basis does the government have to say that I cannot be as responsible with a tank or cannon as a 19 year old Marine?
Because I have the potential to misuse and abuse my rights does not give the government the authority to preemptively deny them. If I were to have a need for such things, the government should not be able to arbitrarily limit my ability to gain them, no more than they should be able to limit the size of printing press or television network I can own.
Own what you want, but respect your neighbors property as well. If you are shooting your AA over my property, you'd better hope I don't return fire.
Not many could, or would, own such things so your attempt at argumentum absurdum is noted and properly ignored from here forward...