Since the US Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, can we have M1A tanks & rocket launchers also?

Answer 1

Ya know, I don't think the Constitution specified, since they didn't HAVE M1A tanks, and rocket launchers, or any tanks for that matter back when the Constitution was written, so why don't we ask Hellary for permission? She thinks she has the right to tell us about how we should raise our children using a village instead of trusting ourselves, as parents, and telling us we need her to have health care that never cures, but only relieves the sick, AT A PRICE, so why not just trust HER for the right answer?

Answer 2

If you READ the Constitution, it actually only gives you the right to "bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia", so if you can find a legal militia with M1A tanks & rocket launchers, I guess the answer is "yes"; if you discover that the government does not take kindly to "armed gangs" that it did not sanction, I suspect the answer (thankfully) is "no"!

Answer 3

If violent criminals were roaming the streets with tanks and rocket launchers, I would want a tank and a rocket launcher. As it is I don't feel the need for a tank or a rocket launcher.

Answer 4

The basic M1 Abrams tank with the old M68, 105mm gun costs around 1.7 Million a piece. They use ten gallons of diesel fuel just to start. The ammunition, it must be expensive but I never knew how much. If yer gonna get the tank, then you will need the M240B coax and the M2 HB Cal. 50 too, they get a bit pricey. The tools? OMG they are so expensive.
If you can afford it, I think you should have one in your garage.

Answer 5

OK, boys and girls...this is what the Supreme Court is gonna decide in October.

As for the one poster saying we the people have no right to firearms...wrong ! A well regulated militia does NOT mean government armies or the National Guard...it means "militias"...groups of men who have a responsible chain of command, drill regularly, and are sworn to uphold the Constitution...not the government.

Perfect example would be any of the veterans groups in existance.

As for private citizens, we should have EVERY right to be as well armed as the government, to prevent the government from becoming a tyranny.

So said Thomas Jefferson...and who better to listen to ?

Answer 6

One...I couldn't afford an M1A1 tank OR rocket launcher...
Two...My cleaning rod only goes up to a .45 cal, so I'd have a problem cleaning it.
Three...I wouldn't be able to afford the ammo for either of them...
Four...I don't need a tank or rocket launcher to protect my family from intruders...
Five...It isn't necessary for private individuals to own tanks or rocket launchers...if you count every legal gun owner in this country, we add up to well over a hundred million man army...who needs tanks?

Answer 7

Perhaps we should. The remark your are trying to slight is put there not so people can hunt, or target shoot, or even to defend your family. It is put in there for the people to be able to protect ourselfs from our own Government. However, it does not say that the GOV. Has to supply you the arms. Or even sell you one. Build your own! So, can you afford to keep and operate an M1A tank? at 2.3 miles per gallon?

Answer 8

i myself am no longer a recommend of firearms possession contained in the context of speedy fireplace guns, yet after studying that answer by "Endangered Species", i'd ought to modify my concepts. If human beings like him could have get top of entry to to them, then I surely opt for one to guard me and mine. The structure is an exercising in semantics, it truly is about who can take advantage compelling argument and interpretation of the certainly words. i.e, "the right to bear hands", I see no factor out of "firearms" and on the formation of the structure they surely had them, so why did not the structure author really factor out that reality?. the different area to that coin is that "hands" is a fave time period for weaponry. The formers also made a level about "A nicely regulated military" so it will be argued that the right to have hands contained locally is for a civilian rigidity to wrestle any infraction of the non violent sex of the inhabitants going about their lawful existence, and as such the hands must be kept in an armoury for that purpose. That semantically could fulfill the right to bear hands in a nicely regulated military.As is the case with maximum of this our structure and others i could imagine, it truly is all about the way you intemperate it, and in case you are able to vocalize your opinion loud sufficient to have others keep on with you.

Answer 9

I'm thinking if you can manage to convince the US you are a country, we'll sell you the arms. We'll even sell you the plans for nuclear energy but we'll also invade your house in twenty years since your country will then be a threat to ours.

Answer 10

Only Chuck Shumer is allowed to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The rest of us should learn martial arts.