Why can I not own a main battle tank?

[hodgy]

Then sir (Quad4_72), please accept a very smart salute from me.

[joesixpack]

The more I think about this issue, the more I want an anti tank weapon. Keeping a tank would become prohibitively expensive, especially if I ever started the engine. However, a recoilless rifle and some HEAT rounds would be good. Pricing them out though, whew that's some money! Still far cheaper than a tank though.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by hodgy

Then sir (Quad4_72), please accept a very smart salute from me.

Salute returned

[Kahalachan]

Did you win the medal of honor and prove yourself to have a strong sense of duty to protect everyone? Ok then have your tank.

I wouldn't mind a war hero having a tank.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Travis

I want to own a battle tank with a fully operational 120mm smoothbore main weapon and all the ammunition I can buy from sketchy Russian dudes.

I think I should be allowed to own one based on the following:

They are so cool!
They'd be way more useful in opposing a tyrannical government than assault weapons.
I would be able to assist in fighting off dragons or other mythical super beasts should they appear suddenly.
Did I mention how cool they are?
A town with guys operating battle tanks is safer from surprise attacks by North Korea.
Purse snatchers can get vaporized so goodbye petty crime!
They are super duper cool!

I know you probably think I shouldn't because they are so dangerous but I totally promise that I would take all sorts of classes on how to operate it and use the main weapon.* I also promise to never use it for a mass murder spree. And why should I be deprived a tank just because some other wacko might use it for terrible purposes? That's punishing me for their sins! After all if we only properly took care of the mentally ill we'd have nothing to fear. Main battle tanks for everyone!


So why should I not be allowed to own a battle tank? Or armored elephants for that matter.




*That, of course, is a lie. Like many gun owners I will invest zero time and energy into learning how to use it safely. I only made that promise so I can get that uber cool battle tank. Any laws requiring me to get training will be opposed by the NTA (National Tank Association) as an infringement of my rights.

Apparently intelligence and common sense are not sold as a package deal.

Pity that.

But nice attempt at reductio ad absurdum anyway.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Loosekannon

let's see the colour of your cash?
in other words,
Can you Pay for the Tank of your choice? Do you have the money?
Till you have cash in hand it's not really much of an issue is it?

I'm sure Travis can come up with the loot to complete the purchase, but have you looked at the insurance premiums?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But there's also no legal reason to distinguish between WMDs and these other weapons. (Except perhaps the issue of a weapon that you can "bear".)

In 18th century parlance, "to bear arms" means to join a military unit. It does not mean to carry a weapon. Soldiers bear arms. Hunters do not.

There's the issue of a weapon you can "keep", but as long as I've got a big enough yard, I can keep a tank just fine.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think Travis deserves our respect for sharing an insight that is at once so sublime, and yet so obvious in retrospect.

We can only be struck dumb with wonder at the OP, which so clearly and decisively resolves the gun control debate once and for all.

Obviously, the OP offers no great insight. It's a rather tired and worn tactic that anyone who has seen the debate has seen again and again. Why?

Because it is never addressed.

There are people who absolutely insist that it would be a violation of the US Constitution and an infringement upon their natural rights to deprive them of the ability to purchase a high capacity magazine. There are people who believe that in this thread, right? An assault weapons ban infringes upon youir rights, correct? It isn't just a bad law, it's depriving you of a right that is both constitutional and natural, isn't it? Surely some people here believe that, don't you?

So, to anyone who does believe that, could you explain the legal principle that makes ownership of a 30 round clip a constitutional and/or natural right, but which excludes hand grenades or battle tanks.

Unless the whole argument is just a straw man in the first place. Perhaps very few gun enthusiasts actually believe it is their constitutional right to own a 30 round clip. Perhaps they think it's a bad idea to ban such weapons, but they don't think it's unconstitutional to do so.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Obviously, the OP offers no great insight. It's a rather tired and worn tactic that anyone who has seen the debate has seen again and again. Why?

Because it is never addressed.

There are people who absolutely insist that it would be a violation of the US Constitution and an infringement upon their natural rights to deprive them of the ability to purchase a high capacity magazine. There are people who believe that in this thread, right? An assault weapons ban infringes upon youir rights, correct? It isn't just a bad law, it's depriving you of a right that is both constitutional and natural, isn't it? Surely some people here believe that, don't you?

So, to anyone who does believe that, could you explain the legal principle that makes ownership of a 30 round clip a constitutional and/or natural right, but which excludes hand grenades or battle tanks.

Unless the whole argument is just a straw man in the first place. Perhaps very few gun enthusiasts actually believe it is their constitutional right to own a 30 round clip. Perhaps they think it's a bad idea to ban such weapons, but they don't think it's unconstitutional to do so.

This would be a great reply and a stake in the heart of the Pro-Gun argument if it hadn't been clearly demonstrated that it is currently legal to own a fully operational tank provided that one had complied with the regulations and paid the proper taxes.

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This would be a great reply and a stake in the heart of the Pro-Gun argument if it hadn't been clearly demonstrated that it is currently legal to own a fully operational tank provided that one had complied with the regulations and paid the proper taxes.

Yep. The answer to Travis' OP question is, in a nutshell, "You can't have a Main Battle Tank because you can't afford it. That simple. Win at least a seven figure lottery and get back to us. Oh, and tanks for visiting 'Tanks-R-Us'. Have a nice day."

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This would be a great reply and a stake in the heart of the Pro-Gun argument if it hadn't been clearly demonstrated that it is currently legal to own a fully operational tank provided that one had complied with the regulations and paid the proper taxes.

That's a bit misleading, though.

What has actually been shown is that there are regulations, taxes, and licenses that can be obtained for weapons like tanks or hand grenades. However, you have to apply for the license and, unlike such things as a driver's license, they don't have to give it to you, and in practice, they won't.

If Travis were to win the megabucks lottery and suddenly find himself with enough money to own a main battle tank, he couldn't buy one. It's conceivable that he might be able to buy the tank itself, but he wouldn't be allowed to buy any ammunition for it.

The point is that the right to keep arms is not absolute. The government can and does say that some weapons may not be held by private citizens, and everyone agrees that such restrictions are not unconstitutional.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's a bit misleading, though.

What has actually been shown is that there are regulations, taxes, and licenses that can be obtained for weapons like tanks or hand grenades. However, you have to apply for the license and, unlike such things as a driver's license, they don't have to give it to you, and in practice, they won't.

If Travis were to win the megabucks lottery and suddenly find himself with enough money to own a main battle tank, he couldn't buy one. It's conceivable that he might be able to buy the tank itself, but he wouldn't be allowed to buy any ammunition for it.

The point is that the right to keep arms is not absolute. The government can and does say that some weapons may not be held by private citizens, and everyone agrees that such restrictions are not unconstitutional.

Actually, he would be able to buy live ammo for it, but each round would be subject to the $200 tax. Same as an individual machine gun. And he could re-machine the gun for an additional $200 and make it fully operational. Please re-read the thread.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Actually, he would be able to buy live ammo for it, but each round would be subject to the $200 tax. Same as an individual machine gun. And he could re-machine the gun for an additional $200 and make it fully operational. Please re-read the thread.

I have, and the background material. He has to apply for a license.

There are certain licenses one can get by walking into a government office, filling out the form, paying the fee, and walking out. There are other licenses where that form has to be reviewed by a thinking human being who gets to decide whether or not to grant the license.

If you want to have high explosives on your property, good luck getting that bureaucrat to say "yes". In practice, you can't have it. That bureaucrat will have a set of guidelines regarding to whom tanks and ammunition can be sold, and he will find that Travis doesn't fit the guidelines, and he won't issue the license.

[Darth Rotor]

Meademaker, that's an interesting semantic point, but the militia at that time were required to bring their own arms.

As to the OP:

Where's CF Larsen when you need him?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Meademaker, that's an interesting semantic point, but the militia at that time were required to bring their own arms.

This is about "bearing arms" being joining a military unit, as opposed to owning weapons?

Yes. You're right. Furthermore, the meaning of "keep arms" is not as clear as "bear arms". I've found quite a few references to people keeping arms in their homes.

What I would say is that they were clearly talking about the desire to have military units governed by civilian organizations, and at a local level. That fits with everything I've ever read from that era about the right to keep and bear arms.

What is less clear is whether the founding fathers intended that to be specifically a right for individual weapon ownership, and if so whether they intended that limits be imposed on that right. i.e. if you asked Alexander Hamilton whether the government could pass a law that prohibited farmers from owning 12 pounder artillery pieces, would Hamilton have said that the Supreme Court should overturn that law? I'm afraid they didn't write down their thoughts on that subject, at least in any source I could find.

I have seen 18th century references to a belief that ownership of muskets was a right that ought to be protected. The justification I read was that Indian attacks could happen and it was impossible for even a local militia to organize quickly enough for a frontier farmer to await their call.

The world has changed a great deal in 200 years.

When it comes to the 2nd ammendment, I'm pretty much on the side of the majority justices in the Heller case. I believe that the Bill of Rights has 10 ammendments, and we can't simply ignore the ones that we don't like. The right to keep arms must mean something, and it must mean something for the individual. On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious that the "well regulated" part also means something. I would not simply ban ownership of weapons, but I would put sufficient regulations on their acquisition and use that the average NRA supporter would squeal like stuck pigs if I had my way on legislation.

When it comes to this thread, I would prohibit private citizens from owning darned near any form of military explosive (tank rounds, mortar shells, hand grenades) or weapons whose use is primarily associated with the military.

I would also heavily regulate large capacity clips. In so doing, I don't think I would be violating anyone's rights under the second ammendment.