Piers Morgan interviewed Dana Loesch, conservative radio talk show host of “The Dana Show” and Scottie Hughs asked both of them tonight -Does the Second Amendment include the right to own a tank? Neither Dana Loesch nor Scottie Hughs could answer the question but the answer is no.
Dictionary.com defines a firearm as “a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.” An AR-15, Uzi, .22 rifle or shotgun are all firearms but a tank is not a firearm. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not permit me to own a tank but it does permit citizens to own firearms and does not state what the fire on can look like.
The reason that banning large capacity magazines or “assault” looking rifles is ridiculous is because it is only a political effort to appease a large ignored population.
1. Assault rifles are not assault rifles but only look like assault rifles. This is because it is not legal to own a fully automatic weapon. An AR-15 is the civilian version of the Military M-16. It is made to look like the M-16 but the AR-15 will only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled while the M-16 can fire a burst of three bullets with one poll of the trigger or can fire continuously on full automatic with one pulled the trigger. The simple truth is that someone can kill a great many people with a shotgun just as easily as with an assault rifle look-alike.
2. There are millions of assault style rifles already in the population. Banning the future sale of these rifles will do very little to stem the number of these guns.
3. Banning high capacity magazines will also do nothing except allow politicians to full the public because I can change the 7 round magazine in my Walther PPKS in only 1.5 seconds and have another 7 bullets. These magazines are not large and I can easily carry 20 or 30 of them in my pockets. Maybe politicians should ban the carrying of more than one magazine. That would prohibit law-abiding people from carrying more than one magazine but criminals don’t care about laws. In fact, anyone interested in shooting a large number of people probably anticipates being killed by a police officer and wouldn’t care about violating any laws.
The reason to own an assault style rifle is the same as any other rifle, for the fun of it. It is true that it is not necessary for hunting but it is fun to shoot.
One reply on “Does the Second Amendment include the right to own a tank?”
Actually, that's not accurate. The Founders said "arms" and not "firearms." The Founders felt that the people should be just as well armed as the government, and they actually were. Private citizens regularly owned arms such as canons and mortars, as well as all other types of weapons which were as powerful, and frequently more so, than the U.S. Government.