Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OCCASparky

“Problem is, the Second Amendment states “well-armed militia”, not firearms, although I rather doubt you’d have a guy in a tricorner hat back in 1790 with a few cannon in his garage.”

As a matter of well recorded fact, large land owners often owned cannon which they kept to protect their property from Indians.

Those cannon were the equivalent of today’s “crew served weapons” like cannon and howitzers.

Might I also note that the ownership of tanks is legal, including the cannon and machine guns. Of course, the gubment does collect taxes on such play toys. Think $200 for each machine gun and $400 for the cannon.

Hope some BATF idiot child doesn’t try to tax each shell for the cannon.


67 posted on 01/14/2008 12:22:42 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: GladesGuru
Hope some BATF idiot child doesn’t try to tax each shell for the cannon.

If you have explosive shells I believe this is the case, but for solid rounds it isn't.

68 posted on 01/14/2008 1:23:11 PM PST by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson