All tanks sold in the US are disarmed.

Seriously? Why should tanks be banned?
Based on anti gunner logic and stats...
Tanks are NOT full auto
Tanks do not have any "military style features". I dare you to find the detachable, hi capacity "clip" on a tank.
They lack flash hiders, pistol grips, muzzle breaks, barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs.
I can probably mow down more people with a derringer than I could with a tank.
There have been NO instances of murder, robbery or assaults with tanks.
When was the last time a tank "just went off".
I don't know of ANY drug dealers or mafiosi who own a tank.
I will concede that we should have registration of tanks. But I have selfish reasons.
I can't afford a tank, but I sure as hell want the license number of the next tank that cuts me off on 95.
Clearly I favor common sense tank legislation.

So much for anti gunner logic....

I am however the owner of one of these, and it will be running as soon as parts from Rolls Royce arrive.


?zz=1


I have a friend that bownes one of these, and drives it weekly.



A little rough on gas mileage.

The tank's guns are not suitable for personal defense as they are not intend for discreet targets. Using the 90mm cannon on an M-60 tank against a burglar woud blow up your house with the burglar.

But, don't fire the main gun inside. It might crack the crockery.

The poster thought it was illegal to own a tank, and it isn't. You can also own a bazooka, or a rocket launcher, as they are nothing but empty tubes. Some jet fighters are privately owned, as well as some WWII fighters and bombers.

a hand grenade or a 50 caliber machine gun.

n/t

And personal does not mean they endorsed it for private ownership. Keep hunting for rationalizations.

Thanks for taking the time.

But go ahead and explain how "personal defense" excludes "private ownership"

Especially ones who conflate terms and have no grasp of vocabulary. Why don't you tell me, since that is your claim.

A) why does pro rights = troll? If you want to post on an anti gun group that prohibits dissent we have one. Go visit the echo chamber.

B) I see no distinction between "personal defense" and private ownership.
Read miller, Heller and mcdonald

Plus any and all facts are NRA talking points. For example, pointing out that AR style rifles are used for hunting game such as deer and hog in many states is an NRA talking point.

My son and I'll be hitting the field with a 3x12 scoped AR. (m4 profile barrel and all)


Hopefully I can come up with the funds for a 6.8 upper before fall season rolls around.

Was expecting deer, but a cluster of Rio Grandes strutted up in fall season, and it is legal. Aim for the leading edge of the wing (the "butt" portion when folded) when the tom is sidewayd. My round passed below the breast, broken one thigh bone, but wrecked the internals. Nearly all meat came through fine. DELICIOUS! Good luck!

The fact that you are pointing out the silliness of the "NRA Talking Point™" meme is in itself an NRA Talking Point™.

And don't try to deny it, because that's an NRA Talking Point™ too!

Strange since if you read my posts, you will find that I often disagree with the NRA. For example I support universal background checks. (Perhaps that is why my check from the NRA hasn't arrived in the mail.)

For some reason I feel that many gun control advocates feel that those who support gun rights should enter the debate with both hands tied behind their back and duck tape over their mouth.

I feel our nation will begin to make some real progress on this issue when both sides start listening to the views and arguments of the other side in a respectful manner and to consider their value fairly.

Except that the "Any Gun Anywhere Anytime" crowd, generally, does not exist.

Sure there are a few individuals that think along those lines, but that they make up a "crowd", well, that's just a contrivance, fabricated out of whole cloth, with the intent of making it look like the "ban them all" crowd, which really and truly exists, has some counterbalance on the other end of the scale. That, and once contrived, the antis can and do point to just about anyone that disagrees, quite often, and using implication and innuendo, try to sell others on the idea that people that disagree with their proposals are one of "them".

The history of the gun discussion on DU is replete with such implications and innuendos.

And I was being a bit hyperbolic about that.
But they do exist.

As long as we have people like that, as well as people who don't believe rkba is an actual RIGHT, nothing will change.

The OP thought he really had something BIG when he saw the words "personal defense" in the DHS solicitation notice.

But not the rest of us.

Personally, I have no strong feeling one way or the other.

People who aren't government employees are entitled to the same level of personal protection as are government employees.

223 is an excellent choice for self defense, and reliable 30 round magazines should pull a homeowner through all but the worst of situations.

Long live the AR15.

it select fire as listed above? This proves that civilian AR's are not 'Assault Weapons' as they are not select fire, but rather civilian AR styled semi auto rifles.

What make AR you got?

None of my firearms are "assault weapons" in fact none are even weapons. I call them life saving devices...


Some of course are only for target shooting, others for hunting.

About RRA. I like my Mini 30 in 7.62 though. May explore .223 if prices ever get sane again and ammo gets back on the shelves.

You can find .223???????
WHERE????

RIIIIIIGHT!

Personal use by ICE.

it is still a gun being used by one person to defend themselves.

Some are crew served. Some are intended for the user to be part of a fire team. Some are for an individual to defend himself if he comes under attack.

I guess that also goes for M-249 SAW, eh?

Although it can be fired individually, it is intended to have two people, a gunner and his assistant. Therefore not suitable for personal defense.

SO ........there you have it..... a "personal defense" weapon!

Therefore a "personal defense" weapon by your chosen interpretation.

...that you're on that slippery slope and that you should be careful to keep your footing. That would be the same slope which leads unfortunates to equate the AK-47 with the AC-47.

Whether or not a small-caliber rifle is the means of personal defense suitable to the situation is a much bigger question. A lawyer or a penecillin injection may well be a far more suitable solution.