Would the Framers have approved Private ownership of tanks and F16s?

I was discussing this question on Friday at work. If the Framers of the 2nd Amendment had known how weaponry would progress, would they have specified that private citizens could own things like tanks and F16s, Blackhawk helicopters, and battleships? When the amendment provides for the right to bear arms, does it mean the right to bear all arms, or just small arms? As we begin debate on another assault weapons ban, I think it is important to remember that the primary reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the citizenry had the right to defend themselves against tyrannical rule.

Which is the major deterrent these days of any kind of uprising. Even if they said tomorrow that you must turn in every firearm you own or they would come and get them - you can hold out....but if the military is with them you can't hold out forever and you will lose your life and not be able to live to fight another day. My wife and I were just talking about this today. Sure, holding out and telling them to " Come and Take It" is the right thing to do technically....but if you're dead, there is then ZERO chance you will ever do anything that might throw off tyranny again.


I could use a tank. That would be nice. Traffic jams? Not with a tank! Of course, you'd really need to make alot of $$ to afford to drive it every day.

I agree that if they have the military against them, it will be a tough fight. I'm pretty sure that our millitary wouldn't be on that side though. I look for them to come at us with UN troops if something like this ever happens.

As for the founding fathers forseeing the weapons we have today...I guess they didn't. I'm not sure how they would actually handle that. I have a feeling that we'd all still have open access to fully automatic weapons though, but who knows.

If it ever comes down to a gun grab, the main thing going for us is that we'll be fighting with a passion where as the soldiers (or whoever is grabbing for guns) will be just following orders. It will be much easier to break their spirits than ours IMO.

I have often been zipping down the road with Milliam at the wheel doing a smidge over the speed limit on some high mountain road and thought " What would Madison, Washington, or Franklin think if we could take them from history and plop them into the backseat of this speeding bullet?"
Then, another light-speed curve would come up and I'd forget all about it.......ahhhhhhhhhhghhghghghhghggghhhh!

Yeah, you do have to wonder what folks from past times would think about how things are now. I was watching "Windtalkers" the other day and one of the soldiers was going on about how odd it was to be fighting side by side with an Indian. He talked about how his grandfather used to tell stories of hunting them like varmints. The next thing he said really fits in well here..."who knows, next thing you know, we'll be sitting down with the Japanese drinking beer" This was a WWII movie. Its really ironic since I work for a Japanese company now and we have been out to dinner with them on occasion.

Well, who could afford it? I work with a gal who used to be in the navy. I asked her "If it came down to it and we had a civil war what percentage do you think would stick with the feds, and what percentage would do thier duty and protect the constitution?" Her reply was a50%. She said when she was in most of the people she worked with were just there for the college benifits and didn't really care about the constitution.

The way I figure it, the folks in our military have family here that would probably be on the side of freedom, so they aren't going to go against them. I do suppose that some families might be on the government side though, so there will be a few that would stick with the government.

I also assume the first line will be the local police and I believe that most of them will side with the constitution. There will definitely be the inner city ones that will think taking guns away is the most important thing. At that point, I hope that they quickly learn that the US is made up of lots more people than just their inner city population.

I was hoping that would be the realization that would have come out of GA voting on the flag...that the people in Atlanta would realize that GA doesn't revolve totally around them.

The Framers were aware that weapon technology would advance. To the degree of planes and tanks...with some imagination, possibly.
As far as I know, there was nothing stopping an individual from owning a cannon(s). There were citizens who owned war materiel. Would not your Letter of Marque be worthless without the proper equipment?

That's it, I'm buying us a tank.


( This statement is a sarcastic attempt at humor and in no way meant to imply that we are going to buy a tank. Today. )

Sweet. I call shotgun....or would that be .50 cal .


I think every household should have a rotary cannon available to them. I know I'd like to have a few for myself. It sure would take some ammo to feed one of those things though!

You betcha they would've. They knew all too well the tyranny that resulted from power.

Lots of ponderables in this discussion. I'd like to take a shot (pun wholly intended) at a couple.

Initially, I do not think the military would side with those of us seeking to preserve our Constitutional freedoms. I think there would be a short wait and see period. If the military leadership knows that the goal is to reinstate the freedoms set forth in the Constitution then I think they would be more inclined to either stay out of any revolt, or join those who revolt. The military is very idealistic and really relies heavily on doing what they swore in their oath to do.

Now, local and federal law enforcement... that's a different story. Their only goal would be to maintain the status quo since that is how they obtain their power. I have a great deal of respect for police officers, but every one of them has this drive for power and control. It is just their inherent makeup. Once the sides are clearly drawn though, I would hope that they would side with the Constitution.

I think a large majority of Local LEO's would side with the people.
After all these would be their friends and neighbors.
They would try and keep order, but would not run wholescale detention or anti-riot operations. There would just be too many people.
There will be exceptions though, and those jurisdictions that try to impose an iron will, They probably won't fare so well.
Especially in places that have high firearm ownership(READ: The south).
Imagine a situation similar to Kent State, Except instead of Hippies(generalization) you have people that have the means and the will to shooot back.
LE won't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
Those will be isolated incidents, but will, in all probability, happen.

The military would be a different story as many will not be local inhabitants.

I have thought about how many military members have become emotionally unstable in part because of the combat that they have seen in the middle east.
Will those who have suffered be more apt to follow orders to fire on Americans, or less?
Will their will be so broken, that the only thing that seems right is to follow orders?

Just a thought. I am not suggesting that it will happen, but I like to look at all the seemingly infinite facets of our present situation.

If it all comes down to something like this, I see us fighting against UN troops and not our own troops. I've no doubt that our government will put some of our own troops in place to try and keep the peace (I believe they are already working on that one), but once it gets out of hand, they'll have to bring in the Blue Helmets.

I am an extremely strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment but certain weapons have an extreme inherent danger beyond the confines of the owner. I am not that wild about my neighbor owning a nuclear bomb and an F16 parked in the driveway would give me pause.

But this is often a straw dog argument used by liberals to disarm the public. The SA is largely about defending oneself and that does include defending oneself from the state when necessary. And I do not think is possible for the common citizenry to defend themselves from the might of the armed forces nor do I think it is conceivable for the Armed Forces to turn on the general public. A country in that state would not maintain a well disciplined and orderly uniformed armed forces. Remember, those under arms also have family and friends in the civilian world.

I think the line should be drawn on weaponry for what is safe to possess and not be an extreme and inherent danger to those outside of my property. Even retaining large amounts of explosives on your property could be rightfully be prohibited though having TNT on a farm might be justified.

Of course, special licenses are always obtainable for special weapons.