highball?
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
i should be able to right.
0
-
Aslong as its an Abrams tank[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
I dont think theres any laws saying you cant have a tank but an operational gun on a tank might be another story.0 -
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
I dont think theres any laws saying you cant have a tank but an operational gun on a tank might be another story.
does anyone have any spare 80mm ammo?[:D]0 -
I actually know of a tank or two in the area.
Operating guns are another matter under present laws.
My opinion is that in the period after reconstruction ..when the Beast is dead ..decent, honest FIGHTING men will sit down and decide the limits of the Second Amendment. They will decide it from the viewpoint of a couple hundred years of steady perversions of thewording of the Second...with an eye towards..."NEVER AGAIN"
I believe it ought to be worth the death penalty for a politician to gain office and start working for gun control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I actually know of a tank or two in the area.
Operating guns are another matter under present laws.
My opinion is that in the period after reconstruction ..when the Beast is dead ..decent, honest FIGHTING men will sit down and decide the limits of the Second Amendment. They will decide it from the viewpoint of a couple hundred years of steady perversions of thewording of the Second...with an eye towards..."NEVER AGAIN"
I believe it ought to be worth the death penalty for a politician to gain office and start working for gun control.
really, how much, ill come get one with my semi if it operable.0 -
As long as someone has the land to shoot it on with a backstop I say why not--99% of the people out there couldn't afford to buy one anyways and the ones who can are more than likely not gang bangers. [:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
Why not?
Misuse it and get hammered instantly. Brings the issue back to that old, punish the commission of a "bad act" concept, rather than the standard collectivist "restrict the object", or "attempt to prevent through control/regulation" approach.
I might well balk at chemical, or nuclear munitions for it, since they are indiscriminate mass-casualty weapons and are unable to be restricted to the individual target.
Look at the main-gun of your new tank, simply as a really large caliber rifle.[;)]
It would certainly make a great "tyranny restriction" statement, don't you think.[8)]0 -
HB,
Congrats, you got your own thread.[;)]
Jeff, were you in the military?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
HB,
Congrats, you got your own thread.[;)]
Jeff, were you in the military?
Yep, US Army Military Police Corps.0 -
Jeff,
Have you ever seen first hand, (live fire exercise or combat) what the guns on a tank can do?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Have you ever seen first hand, (live fire exercise or combat) what the guns on a tank can do?
I know what a tank can do.
I also drew the chemical and nuclear munition analogy, with the knowledge that these are probably restricted to artillery, rather than a tank's main-gun. This was to illustrate the distinction though.
Before you go off and tell me what they will do, understand that our views are very different. I remember what your opinions are about full-auto's and other weapons restrictions. I simply disagree and would rather focus on the commission of "bad-acts", rather than prohibitions and "pre-control".
Just for the record, I know several people who own belt-fed full autos and field pieces. You probably haven't read about them committing mass-murder, or mayhem, in the papers though, have you?
You haven't read about me "nutting up" either, but if I, or my acquaintances were to do so, punishment should be swift and sure.
Gotta go to work now, I'll check back later.0 -
quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
i want to buy a tank, can i do it?
i should be able to right.
Why not? I know several people with cannons, quite capable of firing period projectiles. Put one in the back of a pick-up and you have a tank!0 -
shootuadeal, hey your neighbors on another forum wanting to buy a A-10 warthog. Do you guys get along?[:D] 0 -
Jeff,
The point I am getting to is:
I was involved in the arrest of a man (I shot him in the face with a load of buck shot) who took a full auto AK47 (illegally converted) on a shooting rampage in CS in April 1993. He killed two and wounded three others before I ended it.
Now change this AK47 to a fully armed MBT!!![V]
You are aware of the budget constraints on the LE community more so than most. Do you see a (realistic) problem in being equipped and trained to respond to a person whom has went 'postal' with a fully armed MBT????
As far as a weapon of mass destruction, this is about as close as it gets in the real world.
Do you honestly think the 2nd Amendment is violated when the 'individual' is restricted from owning a fully operational and fully armed MBT???????0 -
Yes it is. If you recall some years back, an individual went on exactly that type of spree (sans ammo if I am not mistaken) and was shot dead in the tank by a Marine reservist who was on the job at the time. Used nothing more than a service pistol to end it. Point being, that it is that act, not the instrument that determines legality. Herein lies the flaw in all your thinking. 0 -
Is your name Jeff????????????[}:)]
Secondly, if this is the one in CA. He was shot dead by a LEO, ONLY AFTER HE HIGH CENTERED THE TANK ON A MEDIAN BARRIER, AND THE LOCK WAS CUT OFF THE HATCH!!!
This just shows how little you know about and understand the REAL world!!![:(]0 -
Uh-in the real world-there is no lock provision on the outside of the hatch of a tank. At least the ones I've actually been in!
And yes, that may be the one. The LEO was a Marine Reservist, who incidentally, happened to know his way around a tank. He simply opened the hatch and blasted away. Yes the tank was high centered. And yes it was the action that was illegal not the vehicle.
Stick to the point, and lay off the insults.0 -
Jim Jim Jim Jim....
You there? there? there? there.....
[B)]0 -
The hatch was locked on the outside with a chain and paddle lock. If you saw the video on this you will note:
1. This UNARMED tank (M-60 MBT) did hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage before the cops GOT VERY LUCKY by the tank hi-centering on the median barrier.
2. The cops could only try and warn people it was coming and stay out of the way, but were powerless to take any direst action to stop it.
3. If this 'weapon' was available to a civilian market, with armament in tact the LEO agencies would have to have them in their inventory, on patrol, and this would cost the tax payer of even small depts. millions. Not to mention the out cry of unrealistic people like you when the 'police have military weapons' on patrol.
Just listen to the AH's scream and holler about the cops using individual weapons similar to the small arms the military uses (SWAT)![:(!]
I hate to say this but you are as clueless as the anti-gun crowd is!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The hatch was locked on the outside with a chain and paddle lock. If you saw the video on this you will note:
1. This UNARMED tank (M-60 MBT) did hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage before the cops GOT VERY LUCKY by the tank hi-centering on the median barrier.
2. The cops could only try and warn people it was coming and stay out of the way, but were powerless to take any direst action to stop it.
3. If this 'weapon' was available to a civilian market, with armament in tact the LEO agencies would have to have them in their inventory, on patrol, and this would cost the tax payer of even small depts. millions. Not to mention the out cry of unrealistic people like you when the 'police have military weapons' on patrol.
Just listen to the AH's scream and holler about the cops using individual weapons similar to the small arms the military uses (SWAT)![:(!]
I hate to say this but you are as clueless as the anti-gun crowd is!!![;)]
I think I remember a guy in an armored "dozer" doing a heck of a lot of damage also, some years back.
The guy built it himself BTW,......I am sure you are aware of what I speak of.
What's the difference?
The crime was the same, and the end result was the same. The operator was killed finally.
A person intent on committing a criminal offense will not be stopped.
They can only be killed, or hung,......imprisoned afterwards.
Jim,.......I truly am sorry that your AK incident has affected you for all of this time. I told you once before I was happy you stopped the individual.
It was self converted, not sold as a FAW.
Always have been nutcases,......always will be.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I hate to say this but you are as clueless as the anti-gun crowd is!!![;)]
So you admit to being clueless. I admire your honesty.
0 -
Rock,
You are more entertaining than HB. [}:)]
Why don't you try and say something intelligent for a change?[;)]0 -
Marc,
The dozier is not equipped with a main gun and coaxial machine guns, and is about 20% as heavy, and even with some plates welded on it is not a armored vehicle. Comparing a tank to a dozier, even with armored plate welded on is like comparing a hand grenade to a 2000 lb bomb.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Marc,
The dozier is not equipped with a main gun and coaxial machine guns, and is about 20% as heavy, and even with some plates welded on it is not a armored vehicle. Comparing a tank to a dozier, even with armored plate welded on is like comparing a hand grenade to a 2000 lb bomb.[;)]
I was not comparing the size or weight,.....I was talking about the damage done, and the length of time it took to stop the guy.
He did as much if not more damage than your tank did, and took longer for the "authorities" to take him out. He sealed himself in!
Actually I believe he killed himself when the engine blew.
This was all done by a regular "schmoe" in a garage, over a property dispute.
Simply attempting to make a point,.......guess it didn't work.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYklNjxzbCE0 -
Marc,
You are missing the point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with a tracked vehicle, UNLESS IT IS EQUIPED WITH 'ARMS'.[;)]
You can take a large construction vehicle, rock truck comes to mind, and run over and into a lot of things and cause a lot of damage. No comparison to what a FULLY armed MBT can do with it's firepower![:(]
JEFF, where did you go?????[8D]0 -
Jim,.......the example you presented was an unarmed tank.
I believe that I get it BTW.
I was making a comparison of what a regular "joe" did in a garage that equates to your example.
Fully armed tanks running in the street owned by PD's, and private citizens is another matter.
I was referencing your example only.0 -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Focus on the highlighted phrase above. The term "bear" is used. During the time that the constitution was written, the term "bear" meant "carry." It is evident that the framers meant that the individual right to be armed referred to weapons that one could carry.0 -
Marc,
If you reread my post about the AH with the AK you will see I ask how this would compare to a person going postal with a fully armed MBT![;)]
My discussion about the unarmed MBT was in response to code's post![:)]0 -
Rock,
Very interesting! I never thought of it as that restrictive. But I can see where you are coming from.[?]
There were 'cannons' in the local armory's even after the 2nd Amendment was in force. I don't know that any 'individual' owned them though.[;)]
A little food for thought!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Rock,
There were 'cannons' in the local armory's even after the 2nd Amendment was in force. I don't know that any 'individual' owned them though.[;)]
A little food for thought!
No doubt there were cannons in the armories after the constitution was written. So what? They were not weapons that an individual could carry, whether he owned them or not.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
64 comments