Ask500

Well... actually, in the U.S. private citizens do have a right to own tanks, and some actually do.

Jay Leno bought a tank for its engine: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/1302941.html

Tanks for sale:

http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml#army-tanks-for-sale

We can have tanks, but when it comes to the small caliber stuff, some of it is off limits. Go figure.

Maybe.

But their point was to ensure that the people could never be oppressed by their government. It's a last-resort to be sure, but back then it wasn't an unreasonable idea to ensure that the people could ensure their government was always in check.

The point is rather moot if all the people have are slingshots while the government has all the semi-automatic weapons, isn't it?

I agree - too vague.

I haven't heard about any extremist plots to assassinate any Austrians named Archduke F. Ferdinand.

:-)

It's a tough call. That's why they're still arguing and fighting over it.

If you go back far enough in history, said occupied area belonged to a nation called Israel and before that a whole bunch of predominantly, but not exclusively, Jewish tribes.

Fast-forward to a time when said occupied areas were dubbed Palestine and occupied by predominantly non-Jewish peoples.

Fast-forward to post-WWII: descendants of the original occupants decided to evict the current occupants and re-name Palestine to Israel. Deja-Vu.

Now, if you go back _far_ enough, you'll likely find that the area was occupied by atheistic nomadic hunter-gatherers who couldn't give a fig who's deity is better, but rather cared more whether they were going to eat dinner or be dinner.

So, pick a side, any side, and you're likely in the wrong anyway.

It's as effective as drug control.

Throwing trillions of good dollars after bad for a losing "war" on drugs to incarcerate more "criminals".

I'm well aware of what both the federal and my state laws have to say about firearms ownerships and restrictions.

I'm also well aware of the restriction on fully automatic (vs. semi-automatic) firearms, sound suppression devices, tactical lights, laser sights, and methods of storage and carry.

Your point is irrelevant.

Given your (blatantly repeated) comment:

"Really? You think that you have a fundamental and absolute right to own a Thompson sub-machine gun? How about an Uzi?"

My answer was "Yes."

So, no, you don't get it. I'm not wrong. What federal law restricts is not relevant to the question, therefore, yes, you are baiting.

Please stop.

You're being antagonistic and you're trying to bait someone into a lengthy argument in which no parties will concede.

What's the point? Does it make you feel better?

The username bucket. :)

Seriously, I drew it out of a hat.

Ok, seriously. I don't remember where I first started using it. I've been using it online for over 10 years.

This is a pointless fruitless engagement. You're already trying to bait me.

You have your opinion. I have mine.

So far, for the past 200+ years, I've been right.

There's no point in dragging this out.

Yes.