I could, save I don’t have the money. Privately owned armored vehicles basically aren’t against the law at all in the US. The sticking point is the main gun and the machine guns. They aren’t against the law, either. They are just so heavily regulated and taxed that they are a rich man’s game. The machine guns aren’t so much the problem as the main gun. Each round of ammunition for it is regulated and taxed as a destructive device.
Probably, Bill Gates couldn’t get a spec Abrams, but only because some of the technology is classified. Previous models of tanks complete with weapons and ammo are easily within his means. Hell, he could own a whole fleet of them. A common rich-guy-in-the-street can own a 70’s vintage AFV.
So I can buy a tank, but not the business end - as you say “The sticking point is the main gun and the machine guns.”. Why is that? Doesn’t your second amendment guarantee me the right to bear arms? Or does your blessed amendment not actually guarantee what you think it does? Fuck, I want to own a squadron of ground attack aircraft - A10s all over the place. If not, why not? A Citizen should be able to defend him or herself against the government after all!
Do you still want the tank and the cruiser? Oh man, Del’s gonna be pissed off.
Is it possible for a gun debate thread not to end in accusations of pantswetting and purchase orders for nukes?
Of course I do! The principle is clear as far as I can tell - I’m not allowed to be restricted by that commie gubmint - bring on the tactical nukes!
Ah.
you are ignoring what I already told you,struan. If you have the money to cover the cost of the gun and the taxes, you can have largely what you want in the US. Nukes are so insanely expensive that even bringing them into this discussion indicates you have nothing really substantive to say.
You can own any of things that you mentioned, provided you have the money.
Anything else?
Not that you give a shit I am sure, but cannons and such are not considered arms, but rather, ordinance. As such, they are not protected by the 2nd.
Ach but no, that’s a shit argument - money is irrelevant here.
You want everybody to have the freedom to arm themselves as they see fit, right? Of course you do, we can all read your posts in this thread. I’d like a nuclear weapon. If I’ve got the money, can I have one? I promise not to use it! If not, why not?
Now you are completely off the chain. I can own any modern breechloading artillery I can afford. The rounds themselves are what drive artillery into unaffordability. Each round is licensed and taxed separately. OTOH, I can order muzzle loading cannons completely free of government interference. Same for muzzleloading rifles,pistols, and revolvers. The only limit is my credit limit. I know a couple guys who have muzzle loading cannons. They’re a hoot on the 4th of July.
Ex-expat here. I don’t know anything much about guns in themselves, and most of what I do know I learned from Dopers. But I have talked to many Americans about the philosophy of the issue, since I felt it was a good idea to understand the people whose country I lived in as best I could.
Anyhow, some tend to say that they want guns to defend themselves against the government, but that’s actually not the main reason why most Americans want the right to bear arms, at least, not quite in the way it sounds. Many Americans who have no personal interest in owning guns would still be horrified if others were prevented from doing so by the government.
The attitude is more that governments in stable democracies rarely turn despotic overnight and launch a full, all-out military assault on their own population at 9am sharp the following morning. Despotism happens by a slow process of erosion of rights, with no single step being all that noticeable. A government intent on subjugation of the people would probably want to remove weapons from private hands. And you could make a case that no US government would attempt any stunt largely because of the armed population. In other words, they don’t want guns to fight off government death squads, they want guns to ensure that the government never has the idea of creating death squads in the first place.
That’s fair enough, in some ways. I’ve often said, in relation to the occasional “should we arm the police?” debates that pop up in the Daily Express from time to time, that if the police have the right to carry guns (as a matter of routine, that is), I want the right too.
And this is also the reason why there’s not too much popular interest in owning tanks, fighter jets and nukes. They would be of no use. By the time things got to the stage where they would be necessary, the USA as a functioning democratic republic would have long ceased to exist.
Ordnance, I think. Could you point me towards the document that has the force of law in the United States with respect to cannons and such that makes the distinction please. I’d like to know how the Founding Fathers, or the Judiciary, or Congress managed to make the distinction - it’ll certainly help in future arguments about government control of weapons!
Err, yeah, I know. :dubious: Thanks for summing it all up though.
Ach well, we all get verbosity attacks from time to time. Looks like it was my night for it.
puts down can of cider
If no one else does, I will in the morning. I’m going out to celebrate my brother’s upcoming marriage to an idiot.
Cheers
Sure, I can think of a few ways that should work. The easiest is to just keep on posting to the thread. That way, the accusations won’t be at the end of the thread anymore.
Granted, this tactic may need to be repeated several times.
Have a good one, JXJohns.
Without a cite, I can tell you that the Feds consider any gun with a bore larger than .50 caliber, dynamite, plastique, C4, iron bombs, RPGs, LAW rockets, and I would imagine nukes as well, to be destructive devices. As such they are regulated under a different set of rules.
Like I said I’ll get you a cite tomorrow.
You too!