|
IMNSHO the only "arms" that should be restricted to us civilians are nukes, chemical and biological weapons. (and the main reason for that is storage issues)
As for Bazookas, Squad Automatic Weapons, SMGs, 16in Naval guns, F16s, A1 Abrams tanks ... whatever. If you can afford it the government should have no right to say you can't own it. Now if you misuse it then the government can come down on you like a ton of bricks (much like they will if you misuse the 2 ton "killing machines" sitting in your garage now).
One of the fundamental arguments we post here against gun control is that Law Abiding Americans can be and should be trusted to keep and bear arms (as is our right) because they are by their very definition Law Abiding.
Why would we assume that if a law abiding citizen can be trusted to walk around with a .45 in his pocket he can't be trusted to have an FN-249 in his safe or a tank in his garage?
Is his (or her) mind suddenly going to be controlled by an inanimate object just because its bigger or is just like one owned by the military?
This is the same anti-logic used to ban "assault weapons" just because they look like their full auto cousins!
__________________
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
Ayn Rand
|