Why can I not own a main battle tank?

[ravdin]

Personally, I'm more worried about police departments owning tanks and other military grade equipment than Travis. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I was just checking around and ammo for your new 120mm tank will run you a few grand a round, and that's at military level contract prices (like say $77m for 40,000 rds) I would bet that you would end up paying $5,000 a rd if you wanted say , 20 or 30...

Perhaps the Iranians could supply something that would do (obviously that would create it's own headaches)? I'm sure someone in the Middle East could be found to assist with this project. Perhaps you wouldn't get the latest model, is that important? Would there be a lot of paper work if I wanted to import weapons from the Middle East, assuming I stayed clear of countries that there are diplomatic issues with?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Cain

Screw tanks. According to Scalia, the wisest and least biased Justice, the Constitution clearly says keep and BEAR arms. It must be an arm one can bear, which is why, he says, a Civil War era cannon is verboten. HOWEVER, he says an over-the-shoulder rocket launcher remains "...undecided."

I mentioned this point earlier. That's why I asked what if the OP had said "RPG launcher" rather than a tank.

Or for that matter chemical, biological or nuclear arms small enough to carry?

The key point from Heller is that the 2nd Amendment right isn't unlimited (does not guarantee the right to own any weapon for any purpose) and it only pertains to weapons in common use.

[StankApe]

Why go to all that effort and risk? Nobody over there is going to go through all that hassle to sell you 20 tank rounds. These people deal in bulk.

When you include international shipping costs, tariffs...etc it would probably cost you more than the $100,000 for 20 rds you could pay retail right here in the good ole USA (plus the tax per rd of course)

[shuttlt]

This all feels kind of retro. There's a book in it I think. Try to live by the constitution as understood at the time of writing.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Cain

A couple problems though. It seems that site's for gun-hell Australia. Also, I want explosives that I can carry; I'm not really looking for commercial/industrial boom. It's not like I want take down a federal building.

I'm sure every one of us would die for your right to be able to take down a federal building if you thought it was necessary. I'm relieved you don't think it's come to that yet.

[BStrong]

One of the largest collections of tanks and other armored vehicles was owned by a local by the name of Jacques Littlefield, who was a holder of a Type 10 SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayer) license to manufacture destructive devices (which Travis's 120mm tank gun would be considered) and in fact, I became familar with Jacques when he'd fire a cannon on the range of which I'm a member every 4th of July.

http://www.mvtf.org/

Unfortunately, Jacques is gone, but the collection remains.

No reason an individual can't own anything short of WMD with the correct licensing.

PS - Travis, better leave parody threads to scrut.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by ravdin

Personally, I'm more worried about police departments owning tanks and other military grade equipment than Travis. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

On a bit of a tangent, this was a real issue here in St. Louis.

During the Civil War, the St. Louis Police Department was sympathetic to the South. The state therefore took control of the Department from the City. We only this year partly got control of our police department back. (State law that would prevent St. Louis* from establishing a meaningful citizen oversight board passed along with the measure otherwise returning control.)

*The law didn't specify "the City of St. Louis" but rather used the language "any city not part of a county"--a set with just one member.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I mentioned this point earlier. That's why I asked what if the OP had said "RPG launcher" rather than a tank.

Or for that matter chemical, biological or nuclear arms small enough to carry?

The key point from Heller is that the 2nd Amendment right isn't unlimited (does not guarantee the right to own any weapon for any purpose) and it only pertains to weapons in common use.

Joe, lots of registered RPG 7's out there, just no live rounds.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Ranb

No need to buy it from Russians, Americans in the USA can sell you one.


You can own one because you have a right to unless you are not allowed to own a firearm due to some crime or mental disability.


You tell us why.

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

Even if the guns on the tanks here are inactivated, all you need to do is submit the ATF form 1 and pay the $200 tax to legally activate them. You will need some good machine tools and a welder though.


If no one will sell them to you, you can legally make them yourself.


Can you tell us why you are being so obtuse? It is not doing anyone any good.

Ranb

So glad you chimed in on this one. If you hadn't I would have PMed you.
The real answer to the OP is actually "Because you can't afford it"

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BStrong

No reason an individual can't own anything short of WMD with the correct licensing.

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".)

There's no constitutional reason the government can prohibit individual ownership of WMDs that prevents it from prohibiting private ownership of, for example, fully automatic firearms.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ravdin

Personally, I'm more worried about police departments owning tanks and other military grade equipment than Travis. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Seriously, I'd much rather Travis have a tank than my local PD. In all seriousness, he's probably a lot more trustworthy.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

I would be able to assist in fighting off dragons or other mythical super beasts should they appear suddenly.

Excuse me? I think not!

http://bp3.blogger.com/_dAGgpaa-6Cw/...d%2Bdragon.jpg

[StankApe]

I think the answer to the OP is freaking some people out!!! I don't think they knew that there are tanks, mini-guns, RPG's, cannons...etc in private hands!

Yet, none of the owners of these super guns are out blowing people all to hell!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Joe, lots of registered RPG 7's out there, just no live rounds.

OK--same issue. It's an arm that the government says you can't own. I don't think it's too important whether what you prohibit is the ammo or the launcher. Both are considered "arms". If it were otherwise, it would give the government a loophole that could render the entire 2nd Amendment meaningless.

ETA: And again Heller points out that the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited and does not give individuals a right to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose. These RPG 7's are certainly not weapons in common use.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I think the answer to the OP is freaking some people out!!! I don't think they knew that there are tanks, mini-guns, RPG's, cannons...etc in private hands!

I don't think any of these weapons are legally owned for the purposes of defending one's home or person. [ETA: Which is what the OP was talking about.]

And I think where they're owned, they're very tightly regulated. (Or they're owned in a way that makes them not arms at all.)

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I think the answer to the OP is freaking some people out!!! I don't think they knew that there are tanks, mini-guns, RPG's, cannons...etc in private hands!

Yet, none of the owners of these super guns are out blowing people all to hell!

Most people don't want to die in a hail of bullets and infamy. I guess there are few enough people who own them perhaps that it's never happened. There was the police chase with the tank thing, but I think that was a stolen tank and I don't think there was any ammunition.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

OK--same issue. It's an arm that the government says you can't own. I don't think it's too important whether what you prohibit is the ammo or the launcher. Both are considered "arms". If it were otherwise, it would give the government a loophole that could render the entire 2nd Amendment meaningless.

ETA: And again Heller points out that the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited and does not give individuals a right to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose. These RPG 7's are certainly not weapons in common use.

An RPG tube is a destructive device subject to NFA registration etc, and the only entities that I know of that have live rounds are military orgs. and certain contractors involved in R. & D. for the military - it's really a non issue.

Same thing with obsolete and current US items considered to be DD's - lots of M79 launchers and M203's in the NFTR, no live HE rounds, only target practice rounds loaded with colored powder to mark impact.

Any live rounds for any of this stuff would be a DD unto itself, and subject to registration and a $200.00 tax stamp on top of whatever cost the live round could command.

Guy like Jacques that wanted to shoot their cannons, etc, would use cast lead projectiles and be satisfied with that, and even a solid projectile over one half inch diamoter for rifled barrels is a DD also.

You're right about common use - everything in the NFA by legal defintion is "dangerous and unusual."

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Most people don't want to die in a hail of bullets and infamy. I guess there are few enough people who own them perhaps that it's never happened. There was the police chase with the tank thing, but I think that was a stolen tank and I don't think there was any ammunition.

Correct - meth head on a run finally shot and killed by a LEO.

[geni]

Originally Posted by BStrong

No reason an individual can't own anything short of WMD with the correct licensing.

With the correct licensing people can actualy own a few WMDs. Phosgene is the obvious one. Used in industry and in research. It does however require a lot of paperwork and people who really know what they are doing (or who are considered expendable but you won't find that on the risk assements). There are also a few other Schedule 3 substances for which much the same applies although I'm not aware of any of the others seeing any actual millitary use.

A least some biological agents could probably be privately owned (not my field though) but again you would be looking at extensive licensing to show you had adiquate lab facilities.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BStrong

An RPG tube is a destructive device subject to NFA registration etc, and the only entities that I know of that have live rounds are military orgs. and certain contractors involved in R. & D. for the military - it's really a non issue.
<snip>

You're right about common use - everything in the NFA by legal defintion is "dangerous and unusual."

I agree this is settled law, but it pretty much is the question the OP is asking.

Travis' state could well prohibit private ownership of tanks. (Of course there's still the flaw that he's trying to parody NRA 2nd Amendment arguments with a weapon that one cannot "bear".) I've been trying to answer his question assuming that is the case.

I suggested a more accurate question to make the point (or raise the question) Travis is making would be RPGs.

The answer is that the weapon isn't in common use, and the 2nd Amendment does not in fact guarantee the right to own any weapon for any use (even though Malcolm thinks it does).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by geni

With the correct licensing people can actualy own a few WMDs. Phosgene is the obvious one. Used in industry and in research. It does however require a lot of paperwork and people who really know what they are doing (or who are considered expendable but you won't find that on the risk assements). There are also a few other Schedule 3 substances for which much the same applies although I'm not aware of any of the others seeing any actual millitary use.

A least some biological agents could probably be privately owned (not my field though) but again you would be looking at extensive licensing to show you had adiquate lab facilities.

OK, but again, I'd be willing to bet money that no individual in the U.S. can own any WMD for purposes of defending his home or person. And again that seems to be the point Travis is trying to raise.

I think he's trying to parody the argument that gun ownership for protection of home and person is some kind of inalienable god-given right that the government may never do anything to limit or restrict in any way for any reason whatsoever.

However, when public safety outweighs that individual right, the government does have the authority to restrict and even prohibit individual ownership of some kinds of weapons (at least those that are not in common use, or in the words of the NFA--as BSTrong correctly points out-- "dangerous and unusual") for the purpose of defense of home or person.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Mike!

I saw that. Let's worry about getting him his tank first, then retro fitting it with operational armaments will be much easier. Now Travis, will you be paying cash, if not, what kind of financing do you have access to? You do know these things don't come cheap, or is this whole, owning a battle tank thing, another pipe dream like high speed rail?

Unfortunately not much.

Originally Posted by Ranb

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

Even if the guns on the tanks here are inactivated, all you need to do is submit the ATF form 1 and pay the $200 tax to legally activate them. You will need some good machine tools and a welder though.


If no one will sell them to you, you can legally make them yourself.


Can you tell us why you are being so obtuse? It is not doing anyone any good.

Ranb

If money is the only obstacle then how about a government program to subsidize tank purchases? We could have one tank for every three or four households.

I mean what price do we put on our safety?

Originally Posted by Ranb

<snip>
Here is your bomb store. http://www.oricaminingservices.com/a...ged_explosives

Ranb

But you have to have like a license to buy bomb stuff.

Why?

Wouldn't we be safer if anyone could purchase any bomb material they want?

Originally Posted by ravdin

Personally, I'm more worried about police departments owning tanks and other military grade equipment than Travis. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Seriously, I'd much rather Travis have a tank than my local PD. In all seriousness, he's probably a lot more trustworthy.

Originally Posted by StankApe

I think the answer to the OP is freaking some people out!!! I don't think they knew that there are tanks, mini-guns, RPG's, cannons...etc in private hands!

Yet, none of the owners of these super guns are out blowing people all to hell!

See people. These things are not a menace. We should get on this government program to get these into every garage. Pronto.

Remember, just like with guns, requirements that people actually know how to use them or prove they are not going to use them for criminal purposes is just Hippy Commie talk.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

OK, but again, I'd be willing to bet money that no individual in the U.S. can own any WMD for purposes of defending his home or person. And again that seems to be the point Travis is trying to raise.

I think he's trying to parody the argument that gun ownership for protection of home and person is some kind of inalienable god-given right that the government may never do anything to limit or restrict in any way for any reason whatsoever.

However, when public safety outweighs that individual right, the government does have the authority to restrict and even prohibit individual ownership of some kinds of weapons (at least those that are not in common use, or in the words of the NFA--as BSTrong correctly points out-- "dangerous and unusual") for the purpose of defense of home or person.

You know Travis is having fun, right?

On the bolded section - here's what happened to an individual that unfortunately used a legal NFA weapon for defense:

http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/...adden-incident

I have encountered legal NFA owners that want to have a weapon or device close to hand for defense (usually a SBR, SBS or suppressor equiped piece), and this is the incident I refer them to in an effort to keep themselves from learning the bad news first hand.

30+ years ago, I remember an old timer telling me, "initiating a confrontation with a car thief armed with an M16 is just begging for legal trouble."

He was 100% correct.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Travis

But you have to have like a license to buy bomb stuff.

Where did you get that idea? Got a link to a federal law that says this?

Ranb

[StankApe]

I wouldn't say it's "hippy commie" talk, rather it's scared, uninformed talk.

If your system worked, there would have never been the attack in Norway. They have pretty stringent gun laws, yet this guy bought his guns legally and killed 70 people !!

(which is higher than any single mass shooting in the USA and when done per capita is insanely high)

You want to cut down gun deaths? Deal with suicides and street gangs. That's where the majority of all gun death is coming from.

[Travis]

It seems most of the tanks for sale on the web are old and/or disabled.

I specifically want one with a 120mm cannon.

So a M1A2 Abrams or a German Leopard II. Maybe a British Challenger II in a pinch.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Where did you get that idea? Got a link to a federal law that says this?

Ranb

I will concede ignorance on this. I just thought, since they talk of people having licensees for handling high explosives on Mythbusters, that you actually needed one to get them.

So you don't?

Why do not more people get C4 then? That would seem really cool stuff to play around with.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by BStrong

.....even a solid projectile over one half inch diamoter for rifled barrels is a DD also.

You're right about common use - everything in the NFA by legal defintion is "dangerous and unusual."

I've always thought the limitation was "breech loading" vs "muzzle loadjng". Since even antique C&R muzzle loaders were over 50 cal. Even here in Kalifornia large bore muzzle loaders are considered less-than-firearms. Even felons can own black powder muzzle loaders.


And a thought re: "common use". If enough RPG tubes, or assault rifles, or full autos get into private hands, won't they be considered 'common'? Remember the Constitution is supposed by some to be 'dynamic'.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BStrong

You know Travis is having fun, right?

I think he's trying to parody pro-gun arguments. His "NTA" is a spoof of the NRA.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by casebro

And a though re: "common use". If enough RPG tubes, or assault rifles, or full autos get into private hands, won't they be considered 'common'? Remember the Constitution is suppsioed by some to be 'dynamic'.

But how would that happen? If individual ownership is already restricted (because they're dangerous and not in common use) how would they ever become something in common use?

If the laws restricting RPG (or whatever) ownership were repealed first, then there's no question as to whether or not the laws are unconstitutional. Once the restriction is removed, it would be possible for the weapon to come into common use (though the issue of public safety still remains one that the government can weigh against the individual right). But if we keep the laws in place, the laws can't possibly be struck down as unconstitutional because the weapon managed to come into common use.

I think of everything you mention, "assault rifles" are the only blurry issue. They were only illegal for a relatively short time, and the constitutionality of that ban was never ruled on by the Supreme Court. I think that's an issue where, with current jurisprudence, reasonable minds could disagree.

[StankApe]

heck, the definition of what an "assault weapon" even is,is vague and seemed to based more on cosmetic scariness as much as firepower or destructive ability.

[tyr_13]

Screw a tank, I want a U-Haul full of fertilizer...

[BobTheCoward]

Arms are protected, not armaments?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Travis

I will concede ignorance on this. I just thought, since they talk of people having licensees for handling high explosives on Mythbusters, that you actually needed one to get them.

So you don't?

Why do not more people get C4 then? That would seem really cool stuff to play around with.

Good grief, you understand that Mythbusters is just entertainment right? I enjoy the show but much of what they say (especially about firearms) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They might also be speaking of CA law which most gun owners understand is not friendly to them at all.

Just because a license is not required to own a machine gun or make/buy a bomb does not mean there are no regulations concerning possession. BATFE authorization is required to own this stuff, but it is normally in the form of paying a tax. While a person who wants to own a few machine guns, sawed off shotguns or silencers is usually better off paying the tax by filling out the registration form, others that deal in high volumes are better off obtaining a license.

C4 might be cool to play around with, but who wants to pay $200 a pop? People usually don't get a license just to goof off either.

Ranb

[Travis]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Screw a tank, I want a U-Haul full of fertilizer...

An interesting idea. How are we going to use this to protect small towns from a North Korean invasion?

No, maybe we don't need to know that. After all if having guns in the hands of every citizen irrespective of their competency or understanding of said weapons somehow makes us all safer then truck bombs everywhere must also somehow make us magically safer.

Originally Posted by Ranb

Good grief, you understand that Mythbusters is just entertainment right? I enjoy the show but much of what they say (especially about firearms) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. They might also be speaking of CA law which most gun owners understand is not friendly to them at all.

Just because a license is not required to own a machine gun or make/buy a bomb does not mean there are no regulations concerning possession. BATFE authorization is required to own this stuff, but it is normally in the form of paying a tax. While a person who wants to own a few machine guns, sawed off shotguns or silencers is usually better off paying the tax by filling out the registration form, others that deal in high volumes are better off obtaining a license.

C4 might be cool to play around with, but who wants to pay $200 a pop? People usually don't get a license just to goof off either.

Ranb

Awesome. Let's convince a billionaire to buy about four pounds of the stuff for every American citizen over the age of 8 years old and give them a blasting cap. Then America will have never been safer.

[Redtail]

http://worldoftanks.com/

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Travis

*snipped a bit*

Oh that is just ridiculous. Battle tanks are what we need to make society safer. Imagine if teachers conducted their classes from inside tanks with the main gun sighted in on the students! Schools would never be more secure (and Bobby would sure as hell stop chewing gum).

That one would NEVER wash.

You'd need at least a second operator for the machine gun, and with all budget cuts in schoold it'd be impossible to find a qualified assistant to do so.

[R.Mackey]

Pretty sure the commander can override driver controls and fire the coax. Surely we have some tankers on the board who could clear that up, though.

In any case, this thread was obviously in jest, but there are ways to acquire a functional armored vehicle. They're just absurdly expensive, and much easier in some states than others.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Cain

Ranb, do you follow through on your links at all because your Google-Fu looks weak. Is it your contention that purchasing ammonium nitrate is not much more difficult than buying a Sig Sauer?

No I did not say that. I have always been careful to say that purchasing or making title 1 firearms is different than making or buying title 2 firearms. If you would stop trolling for a while you would notice this.

Do you have any evidence that it is difficult to purchase ammonium nitrate?

Ranb