Replies

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here is where some folks get really silly. Where does the above quote say you have the right to own an army tank with loaded shells?? Just answer me, if you feel you have the RIGHT to do so.

I'll look to see if you took the bait tomorrow.

G'nite

Here is where some folks get really silly. Where does the above quote say you have the right to own an army tank with loaded shells?? Just answer me, if you feel you have the RIGHT to do so.

Well, dear, tracked military vehicles are not restricted in any way, other than DOD surplusing regulations. Tank main guns would come under the Fedgov classification "destructive device" and, as such, would be transferable (heck, even makeable) after the appropriate paperwork has been approved and a $200 transfer tax has been paid. Tank rounds (solid, non-HE projectiles) are unrestricted. HE rounds would require a $200 transfer tax per round for a non-licensee to possess, plus appropriate (and expensive) transportation and (magazine) storage requirements. Ain't America great?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here is where some folks get really silly. Where does the above quote say you have the right to own an army tank with loaded shells?? Just answer me, if you feel you have the RIGHT to do so.
I'll look to see if you took the bait tomorrow
-vets-

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

Since the Constitution is not the SOURCE of my rights and since the Constitution is bit and bridle on GOVERNMENT, then I need no justification for whatEVER weapons I can letigimately AFFORD. Ancillary to that is the requirement for responsible storage and use of whatever I have... but (short of area-denial weapons, such as chemicals or biologicals-- MY line of demarcation) anything someone wants, can afford and can store and use responsibly is none of MY business, your business or GOVERNMENT's business. It is the MIS USE of ANYTHING that is the problem, NOT the thing itself. Furthermore, there is a hue and cry now to ban all .50 cal so called "sniper" rifles. Despite the FACT that there have NEVER BEEN ANY of them linked in any way to CRIME. Not to mention that there are people NOW who legitimately own TANKS with LIVE ammo. Have you ever heard of any of them being used to commit crimes? Nope. Same with artillery pieces. And live ammo. In fact, the ONLY time I ever heard of a tank being used criminally was a GOVERNMENT TANK which was stolen right from under the Army's nose down in San Diego some 10 years ago or so. Does that answer your question?

Where does the above quote say you have the right to own an army tank with loaded shells??

By the way, does anyone know how much an M1-A1 is going for these days? We've had a little trouble in the neighborhood recently, so I'm considering upgrading my defensive capabilities.

"Here is where some folks get really silly. Where does the above quote say you have the right to own an army tank with loaded shells?? Just answer me, if you feel you have the RIGHT to do so."

The silly part of the argument is where people bring this argument up to try and discredit gun ownership. The Second Amendment covers guns...of that we can all agree. If you want to talk about whether the right extends to other arms, fine, but comparing gun ownership to nuclear weapons is absurd.

Does the Second cover all guns? I would say yes. In fact, the reason that full auto firearms were not outright banned by the NFA in the 30's is that the Second Amendmend would not have been interpreted by the courts to allow that (those were the days before liberal constitutional revisionists were widespread)hence the tax scheme.

As a previous poster pointed out, it is legal to own a tank with live rounds if you want to jump through the hoops or if you are a manufacturer. However, not sure that ownership of some weapons can now be classified as a right any longer.