I once shot a shot up tank with a rocket launcher in the Marines.
A trainer told me not to call it a bazooka but it looked like a bazooka to me.
I also fired a LAWS but I can't remember what the target was.
It wasn't a tank because I recall there being only one tank I ever put a whammy on.

What problem are we trying to fix? Unless you live in one of Detroit or Chicago's more unstable ghettos, you're more likely to die of a lightning strike than by gunshot. Why are we obsessing over the need to "do something" and in so doing, contemplating tossing away our Constitutionally defined rights and our founding principles?

Like I said we're tryng to fix a problem assuming perfect conditions...conditions are nowhere near perfect these days...the only way around all this is for regular citizens to follow these creatures around and as soon as they act up...bam! but even that is not the perfect answer.
I understand we are trying to stand on principle here but it seems by doing so we will be shot and taken over anyway. I don't see anyway the twain will meet.

Reverse psychology

So, you said in part that anyone that "...comes from or associates with pagan barbaric religious groups-(muslims) should not have guns."

What local court will decide this? And do you really think it would take a higher court more than about ten seconds to overturn such a decision? And can the "local community" somehow override the Constitution in deciding who is and isn't worthy of their rights defined by the Second Amendment?

I really don't think you've thought this through.

hahahah...just a pipe dream...but it would make them think a bit...maybe laugh, make them realize how stupid the question was but make them think twice.

The local courts obviously and back in the day and I bet there is no president, wouldn't they ask the local community?
As for islam...especially the newly immigrated, in my mind have not earned these rights yet, must be citizens...no? and I am aware that it's automatic these days...that too is against the constitution is it not?

funny that if Obama really wanted to get rid of guns, he would announce that there will be no restriction on gun ownership. Then people wouldnt see as much need to HAVE guns !!

Agreed, my Dad grew up around guns in Utah. Then spent some time in both the navy and the army. So, growing up I was tought to respect guns and how to properly handle them. I had to take a hunter's safety course to get a hunting license in the PRC, which was a TOTAL waste of time. I aced the test and could have aced it prior to taking the course. Most kids nowadays only know the misinformation they learn playing Call of Duty.

Read Federalist Paper 46 to understand the thought process of the authors of the Constitution. What you state agrees with their point of view.

That's why lately I am either short term trading, or buying high quality dividend stocks.

I belong to a group that at various times has had their guns taken by state militia, been denied protection by the federal government when state militias murdered, maimed and stole property, and were under military occupation by the largest pre-Civil War US Army outpost. And some folks wonder why I would rather trust in my own guns rather than the government.

As with any law, motive is a contributing factor. Rushing a wounded man to a hospital by breaking speed laws may be allowed. But, a man could feign sickness when stopped by a police officer. No law is perfect, and no law is enforceable under all conditions. Passing multiple laws governing any action does nothing more than restrict the freedom of the citizenry. If your Utopia is created by making the citizens obey a lengthy list of rules, then it is not a Utopia, but a bar-less jail.

Interesting point. They can set up checkpoints and confiscate any guns they find. They will pass any laws they need to protect the government from the citizens.

Gold was legal until 1932 when you had to turn it in to the government and it was illegal until like 1971 when it was legal again.

Chances are you will never need to use them, except against the very government that enacts the laws. They need to be UN-registered, kept quietly and hidden from that government. That is actually hard to do, but when the time comes only those guns will be useful.

As to terrorists, they will have the guns (probably already have them) to do their killing regardless of what our pathetic government does.

I am typically a long-term buyer. If Trump becomes president, you may see a big drop in gun stock prices.

Already left the PRC...and took my money with me.

The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable citizens to protect themselves FROM an oppressive government should the need arise. And THAT is exactly why our government wants restrictions on gun ownership.

You bought that Sherman you previously wrote about here wanting awful fast--and on the Fourth of July too.
Some eBay dealer in Sherman tanks must reside in your home town.

If you go through the bug inspection station they may ask to look in your trunk.

I found out how to get around the People's Republic of California fiats...I moved to Utah.

Everytime the subject of gun control comes up S&W stock goes up. I had bought S&W prior to the last scare and then sold after. Typically, if you are willing to buy when nothing is happening in the news concerning guns and hold for the next gun scare you can make money as long as you understand that the bump in price will only be temporary.

OK, but you didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it: The Fifth Amendment states in part that no citizen may "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

You are proposing depriving a group of people of a fundamental, Constitutionally recognized liberty. What due process is involved?

those who want gun control will not stop at the changes for long guns. changes will come to all guns and it will happen faster than you think since some republicans have stepped on board the confiscation train.