Ah, I DID hear that before. Which makes sense, since you can own basically any vehicle with treads. The only thing separating it from that would be the armor plating. But still shows that the 2nd amendment only applies to the actual cannon itself, and not the vehicle. A tank isn't really a tank without it. Then it's more of an APC.
Correct. The people who own them, it's usually for some historical recreation/museum purpose.
Just curious to know what hoops need to be jumped through to get those. You can't just go to the local gun store and pick one up like a handgun. I'm guessing any permits to get those would require some stringent rules and regulations. Not quite abiding by the "shall not be infringed" wording of the 2nd.
Compliance with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1989, and other various and sundry ATF regulations. There are "Class III" FFL dealers, who specialize in helping a buyer through the process. Some Class III items, such as suppressors (silencers) are legal to manufacture. That's the bulk of the work a Class III FFL does. But there's also short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, full-auto / select fire guns, and other Class III items. People who own
any Class III items are in the extreme minority (excluding gang members who are getting "glock switches" from China or somewhere, but that shit's illegal, this is about legal ownership). The suppressors are becoming more common though, mostly because people just don't want to go deaf for no reason. Full-auto guns, like I said, are VERY expensive to own, and not many are "on sale" anywhere at any given time. There are probably internet places where they're listed. Something like a pre-1989 full-auto rifle that looks like an M16 (civilian full-auto AR-15, the last of which was made in 1989) sell around $25k I think. I'm not ever gonna be in the market for such a thing though ... no way I could afford the ammo lol.
As for not quite abiding by the 2nd Amendment, I agree. All three of those federal gun control laws are infringements, and they should be abolished. But it's pretty much a "someone let the horses out of the barn" situation now. Good luck ever getting them back in.
The 3/5th's compromise was pretty clear, but it was still changed. There was no ignorance about how it was read, but the times called for it to be changed. I would never say there doesn't need to be a VERY strict process for making changes to it, but it's still possible and has been done multiple times in the past.
That's why I said, the Constitution can be amended. And it contains a set of instructions for exactly how to do it. And it has been amended, 27 times. But that's not the same as saying it's a "living" document ... people who say that typically mean we're allowed to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we would feel good about and want, not what it actually says. Like, creating rights where the words in the Constitution make no mention of those issues. If there's something the people want the Constitution to say, but it's not in there now, then it should be amended. It's really simple.