View Single Post
  #20  
Old 12-19-2012, 10:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,376
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellblade View Post
Tanks make good examples. Simply explain that yes, a private civilian should have the right to own and operate a tank. Consider everything else that goes with tank ownership:
Tanks are expensive to buy. Do you know anyone who could afford one?
Tanks require maintenance. Who's your mechanic?
Tanks are expensive to operate. Fuel is already expensive and tanks use a LOT.
Tanks are heavy. They'll do extensive damage to road and the owner would be responsible for all property damage caused.
Limited availability. Know any good dealers? The 2A doesn't say our government needs to provide them for sale.
That should be a good start.

*edit: Happen to have military channel on. The program just said the Bradly costs $3.1 million and weighs in at 25 tons.
All that being true, there are some rather well-off individuals who own tanks and other armored vehicles here in the US. The other trick is getting the 'destructive device' license for the main guns, and, IIRC, every individual cannon shell/round.

See, for example, http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote