Do american citizens have the right to own military tanks according to the 2nd ammendment?

Do american citizens have the right to own military tanks according to the 2nd ammendment?

Should they?

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/Are-civilians-allowed-to-own-military-tanks
milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
youtube.com/watch?v=MMbI22Uya8A
youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0
youtu.be/tmFiZoe-7P4
youtube.com/watch?v=mxN0WfFKLRU
youtube.com/watch?v=teyi0ofPOs4
youtube.com/watch?v=E0Ey_hgayNM
mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2#currency=USD
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immigration-priority-south-african-farmers-facing-systematic-land-confiscations-and-murder
guns.com/2015/08/25/want-to-buy-a-tank/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The UK allows them, why not the USA?

In some states you literally can...and they are street legal. It is protected.

>For a while, there was a tank parked at a shop in the town next to mine. Civilians can own decomissioned military tanks. The guns and firing control systems must be disabled. You cannot drive it on most public roads without special permits, and you'll need rubberized treads to avoid damaging the roadway.

quora.com/Are-civilians-allowed-to-own-military-tanks

Also what is this 'should'? Should I not fuck my best friend's wife's feet while I suck his cock? No, but I still do. Faggot.

Not sure what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is difficult to understand

No way. The UK wants to ban kitchen knifes and somehow they allow tanks?

Really? Isn't there any obstacles to that?

>No way. The UK wants to ban kitchen knifes and somehow they allow tanks?
Because you cannot conceal a tank.

milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

yes, but nobody sells abrams, they can get M3 lees, pattons etc

Of course there are obstacles. It's a tank and America isn't as free as it used to be :^(

>The guns and firing control systems must be disabled
Oh boy

An American citizen should be able to own any weapon of reasonable destructive force needed to defend themselves from a mob of people. Clearly owning a tank does not meet the reasonable force criteria because a tank is simply too destructive; however owning an assault weapon does meet the criteria of reasonable force. Therefore people should be allowed to own semi automatic and even automatic rifles.

Private citizens owned cannons.

I have a cannon in my back yard I should be able to park a tank next to it

Yes and no bump for your shit slide thread

Why should elected and unaccountable officials be the only ones that have access to heavy weapons? Theyre in their position to simply run managerial services for the country. Theres no reason I shouldnt be able to purchase a ground based cruise missile system and they can. We're both well meaning citizens aligned to the same interests. At least on paper.

Let's take it to the extreme, moron.

>An AR15, or personally owned thermonuclear weapons
>35% tax rate, or 85% tax rate
>Limited immigration, unlimited immigration

They should.

is tank a bear-arms or a vehicle?

hmmmmm

We can own anything short of Nukes, Biological, Chemical weapons and stuff considered top secret like stealth technology and the uranium plate armor on Abrams tanks. It's just a matter of jumping through government hoops and cost. Not many civilians have the capability to buy military grade weapons.

Here is a redpill for you guys.

Meet the most armed man in the USA, Mel Bernstein. He sells everything from AA guns to every fire arms available, tanks... trucks with AA and miniguns. Name it.

You can't protect your home and family with a nuclear weapon, aircraft carrier, howitzer, F-15, or tank.

I don't care about the tank
just give me the turbine

It's to protect against the government you stupid cuck.

There is a philosophicalcase for it

A guy up here in Canada used a Russian T-55 tank up in the village of Stewart BC for avalanche control along the road systems up there. He was contracted to do it with the Gov, they supplied him with ammo and repairs as well.

Hold my beer, user. . .

a tank would never pass inspection to become road legal

Ok so we need weapons an that would reasonably defend against the United States armed forces

Used to live a few miles from that guys range. 2016 he had a Hillary doll tied up to a tank or some shit, it was funny. Also his wife died at that range somehow I forget.

>defend
Wrong attitude. You don't win a rebellion against an oppressive regime by playing defense. The citizenry needs offensive weaponry.

Crossbows are unregulated too. Don't try to apply logic to it

Needs to be a new technology. Legacy systems like armies will become obsolite

I'm guessing she got shot

Should have access to AT gear. Would be easier and more effective for a public militia to operate.

Never forget Marvin
He did nothing wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

yes and yes

You can't protect your home with the police, either.

My dad has a tank. I think he paid $100k for it. Functional main gun.
Finding a functional round for the main gun would probably be more difficult than locating kilos of cocaine

I'm pretty sure /k/ could help you find schematics to make your own. If not /k/ here, /k/ on hate chan definitely could. Those niggers pass out .pdfs on how to make explosives and homemade rifles like candy.

...

Go straight to 4:29

youtube.com/watch?v=MMbI22Uya8A

Some of this too.

youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0

Lets say I'm super wealthy. As in money not an issue. If we as citizens really want to fend off a tyrannical government, I should be able to buy a tank, bombs, attack helicopters.

You are not a man in America if you don't have a tank in your garage. or maybe your just poor.

good luck with going up against an unmanned drone or an abrams with your AR user. kek.

>Inb4 "but but but Iraq/Afghanistan!!!"

if you count having your leaders executed, your entire family and children murdered, and country burned to the ground with the infrastructure destroyed for decades to come as, a win then I guess go for it.

yes

I will say this- we do whatever the fuck we want-when we want.

the kremlin will be gassed soon. fuck vlad the nigger cuck boy putin.

Didn't a shell explosion kill someone recently

We should be able to own the arms and ordnance on the tank without jumping through hoops. But the tank itself is not a big deal. Because 2nd amendment for the firepower.

>responds to a smuggie
>is the guy in the smuggie
kek

BIN THAT TANK

No its better if we keep those damn lefty fags away from getting another disastrous revolution

probably. shell explosions will often kill people when they explode.

TBT when this literally happened.

youtu.be/tmFiZoe-7P4

As long as the tank doesn't have a bump stock or high capacity magazine I see no issue with owning one. At least its not an AR-15!

youtube.com/watch?v=mxN0WfFKLRU
youtube.com/watch?v=teyi0ofPOs4
youtube.com/watch?v=2eV8N0bUzA0
youtube.com/watch?v=E0Ey_hgayNM
Yes. Also howitzers and anti-tank guns.
Be jelly fags.

Of course we have the right to a motherfucking tank.
mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2#currency=USD
Whenever I see this I can only imagine what the Founders would do with a tank. If you don't think they'd drive a tank through the British Parliament building you're sadly mistaken.

Yes

At one of the "shoots"?
I hadn't heard.

I love this country.

We can own tanks, albeit demilitarized

Every American should own a tank. We should be like Switzerland except with tanks. It would make our tank industry boom.

You missed... this.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immigration-priority-south-african-farmers-facing-systematic-land-confiscations-and-murder

wow kike boy thats edgy

>being this fucking retarded
Sometimes i feel like being a sandnigger isn't all that bad

Tanks are safer than guns, it takes a lot of effort to make a tank kill a person than it does with a gun.

Yes we do, and I don’t see why not. We could even own the high-end armor piercing discarding sabot rounds, assuming they were of tungsten construction and not depleted uranium, though you still might be able to.
The trick is that they cost millions of dollars so you don’t really have to worry about people fucking around with them.

Even in California you can own a tank.

Now just think of how fucked in the head liberals are to hate it.

Yes, the Second Amendment was conceived in a time when there was private warships.

You may laugh but "recreational nukes" should be legal.

Not as extreme when you consider the cost, procurement of materials and the ability to safely manufacture without breaking a multitude of other laws and regulations.

b-b-but liberals

hey kike boy

Meh, I'd rather have a crate of MANPADS or ATGWs.

Yes and nukes too
You don’t like it amend the constitution

if the military has it anyone should have it

...

You can own a tank in the US. Only know of 1 M1 that went for public auction and was $1m or more but a T72 can be had for $40-50k.
Need street treads and the tank gets demilled with the gun being useless.

Interesting fact, T72 needs 400l per 100km in summer (100ga per 65miles) or 600l per 100km in winter.
Not cheap to run. M1 even more since those turbines are hungry.

I thought so.

It's not just liberals.
All big gov types try to disarm the civilian populations.
Never ended well.
Not once.

>"recreational nukes" should be legal.
I like this guy.
>a tactical nuke in every gun safe
>because it's something you don't want children playing with
>be safe

My buddy recently bought one of these (pic related)

I know some old timers with some old tanks but they don't run and are out of commission for war.

>can't own tank with a working main gun
have i got something to show you /k/ommrade
guns.com/2015/08/25/want-to-buy-a-tank/

Alright.

Those trucks are awesome.

If you are Arnold Schwarzenegger, than yes.

I learned that flamethrowers are completely legal in Canada without any licence whatsoever because they're not even considered firearms.

Nunchuks are prohibited weapons though.

>Do american citizens have the right to own military tanks according to the 2nd amendment?
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to guarantee that the citizenry is on equal footing with their government. If anything, the founding fathers would be trying to make sure people had enough weapons to protect themselves from a government with jets, IBMs, miniguns, rockets launchers, and nuclear bombs.

I also find it funny that the liberal answer to the questions "should citizens be allowed to own any weapon" and "do you trust the government/police" are usually the same answer. If they can own it, I should be (legally) allowed to own it, otherwise, they can do (and will do) whatever they want because you're far less likely to be able to immediately retaliate.

>should be able to own any weapon of reasonable destructive force

Can you show me where in the 2nd amendment it says that?

Was on tanks in Army. You can't afford the fuel costs.

Says no working gun too but they also put holes in the armor and then weld soft steel over to demil.

What's the burn rate on the m1?

I think there is another amendment that says the opposite. Like: You can have guns if you do a lot of paperwork, register them and aren't a threat to government or have a criminal record. Also you may not own weapons that would enable you to overthrow government, why would you want to do that anyway you terrorist, just let your liberty go and give your daughters to us.

>a country literally founded by plucky rebels fighting against the mightiest empire in the world
>"g-g-g-good luck fighting against a powerful country!!!!!!"

I bet you live in Dublin you westbrit cuck.

keking

The "founding fathers" just wanted to seem brave to eachother after Brits saved the world from the French. Kind of like Ghandi and friends.

Tanks are artillery, not firearms. You're comparing apples to oranges.

4-6 gallons per mile, we'd go though over 500 gallons a day during operations.

You watch too many memes on the internet monkey boy.