Quite right, Tranquilisand I should have noted earlier when I posted the thing about the NFA that it’s the GUN on the tank (and/or the various machineguns mounted on it) that is the “destructive device,” not the big metal vehicle thingy it rides in.
The deal about the guided missile frigate reminds me of the Russian sub now moored in San Diego–(old story) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2076001,00.html
I’m sure they would love to find a buyer!
tsunamisurfer, I guess anything’s possible, but the idea of China selling a nuclear frigate (with nukes) to some rich dude is a bit beyond the pale. Playing soldier or swabby requires not just money, but the ability to print lots of it. None of this stuff is user friendly, and requires at least a couple of really dedicated and friendly helpers, and probably even an owner’s manual.
All things considered, a Barrett .50 IS pretty far from a TOW, and even further from a frigate. One of the reasons so many gun owners get upset about legislation regulating individual weapons is that those weapons are just that–individual, and they are affordable and useful to the average person.
A typical gun owner is not going to start a dubious constitutional legal challenge over government regulations regarding disposal of stuff he would never be able to afford anyway. He has enough trouble keeping his own personal weapon.
As far as “how can the government restrict,” etc. in the face of the Constitution–well, it restricts that right the same as other rights–through the passage of laws (the US Code). The determination of whether or not a law “supersedes” the Constitution is why we have courts.
Just because I have the right to do something does not mean that my fellow Americans have no right through the legislative process to regulate how I exercise my right. I have a right to vote, but that doesn’t mean that the government does not have the ability to set up polling stations, and require identification, or registration as a voter.
** As to your initial OP**, yes there are regulations regarding the purchase of an old howitzer, or a tank, or a TOW, and even guided missile frigates. These regulations (as far as I know) have never been challenged in court to test their Constitutionality with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. My opinion is that no challenges have been mounted because there is little general benefit to the population for either an individual or a group to do so. The fact that there are “limits” imposed by these regulations does not negate the purpose of the Second Amendment, nor does it add anything to the arguments regarding individual gun ownership. (Check section 2.2 of this link talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ 1/2 for some more opinions)
Sorry, enough of the negative waves