Fail. if I get the ATF permits i can have all of those things. So back to the dumbass title of this thread, YES MILITARY HARDWARE IS RESTRICTED. it is not banned.Well you can't have an machine gun a tank a bazooka a grenade launcher so someone has already decided for you.
I live in a rural area. No police nearby. WTF good is a single shot gun? 3 armed robbers show up at my house that gun would be useless/suicide.
Thank you for your concern.In liberal-land, you have no fundamental right to defend yourself, so sucks to be you, bro. You need to crawl on your knees to the god of government to tell you what you're allowed to do and beg them to defend you; sucks to be you and your family if the authorities don't get there in time. It's also your fault for having stuff that crooks want.
This is exactly what our founders were concerned about when they created the Constitution; it's why the 2nd amendment is where it is in the Bill of Rights. The BoR is a deliberate list of negative rights to limit government to preserve the freedom of individuals and states; many liberals hate this. Think I'm off base here? Do a quick google search on "Obama's view of the Constitution". You'll find links to center-left leaning sources that describe how Obama weakened the Constitution.
As to the 2nd amendment, there were multi-shot capable weapons (though crude) at the time of writing of the BoR. They had rifles, not just smooth-barrel muskets. Furthermore, as firearm technology progressed through the 19th century, the government didn't have any issue with private citizens having access to said new technology in weapons. I'll leave it at that only because there are some that advocate that the founders only envisioned muskets when they wrote the 2nd amendment, so that's all that private citizens should be allowed to own. Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated, as they should be.
To close, libs can talk about bans all they want, but until they figure out how to disarm criminals, nothing good will happen. All you'll have is disarmed people at the mercy of armed thugs. You'll still have the ongoing slaughter in our inner cities and you'll still have to deal with the armed Latino gangs that are making there way here thanks to the lax immigration policies of your beloved Obama. There. That'll trigger a few of the snowflakes that live here.
If three armed robbers show up at your house that's three versus one. Or are you hoping that they've been trained like a Star Wars stormtrooper, then they announce themselves to give you sufficient notice so you're ready with your favourite action hero fantasy to get on?
He raised the idiotic example as a reason why he needs firearms, and I have no idea why you added "ninja-like" to your response; it's logical that burglars are either going to take the stealthy approach or just go all-in straight away. In either case it's going to take the average person by surprise, whether or not they're tooled up as much as practically possible.
Furthermore, you're acting like firearms are the only way to defend what's you and yours, and you're adopting common tactic of assuming extremes to disparage the opposing arguments: try to avoid it, it's idiotic.
As a side note, I'm all for self-defence classes; frankly I'm sure that there are plenty of things the average person could learn about defending their person, family and possessions. ie. it's not the size of the weapon that counts, it's what you do with it.
If you restrict the availability of firearms and means of legal ownership then it is logical that they will be less easily available. If they're less easy to acquire, then logically less people "good" or "bad" will have them.
Furthermore, guns are not like drugs, alcohol or any other vices as far as the average person is concerned, so the comparison does not work.
Also, if you're going to bother responding, then try and actually answer the questions and points I put forward.