Quote:
Glib answers just undermine your point by showing that you have no valid response.

Should the average American citizen have access to an Abrams tank?


Did you know Mein Kampf is banned in Dutch bookstores? Hell, it's on highschool summer reading lists in the US. Also, Nazi insignia is banned in Germany. Did you know that the German police, in the weeks leading up to the World Cup, were threatening 3 year prison sentences for anyone immitating a Nazi goosestep or the Nazi salute?

We can both find a million reasons why Nazism and anything related to it is bad. But I'm sure we can both see that outlawing it is a grave affront to freedom of speech. The German police, in their efforts to rid the World Cup of intolerance, became that which they tried to stop. The negatives of free speech far outweigh the negatives of limited speech.

And so I believe the same applies to the right to bear arms, and yes, I believe citizens should have the right to own a tank, which they currently do.

Liberals have successfully banned the manufacture of fully-automatic firearms, by "piggy-backing" (you know that thing we all hate?) a bill in 1986. This is despite the fact that there has never been a crime a committed with registered automatic firearms since registration was first required in 1934. There has also never been a crime committed with a .50 BMG rifle, which is the new "evil" arch-enemy of the anti-gun activists. There is no logic in banning these weapons, since they are involved in no crimes, except that their logic is to incrementally ban as many weapons as they can. Yesterday it was the full-auto, today it's the .50 caliber, tomorrow it's the .30-06 hunting rifle, and then we will no longer be free. We will be harmless, obedient government workers.

FYI, no crime has ever been committed in the US with a legally owned tank, except for one occasion where a stolen tank was used in a rampage.