5 ms·

Or, simply open up the sales of tanks to the civilian market. That's a joke, of course, but even if they were demilitarised variants there'd probably still be

Or, simply open up the sales of tanks to the civilian market. That's a joke, of course, but even if they were demilitarised variants there'd probably still be a market for it.

marssaxman 10mo ago
There definitely is a market for such vehicles: http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks https://mortarinvestments.eu/ArmouredVehicles https://mortarinvestments.eu/ArmouredVehicles https://miltrade.com/pages/military-vehicles-for-sale-in-europe https://miltrade.com/pages/military-vehicles-for-sale-in-eur... https://tanksales.co.uk/sales/ https://tanksales.co.uk/sales/ Ten or fifteen years back, I had an ambition to buy such a vehicle and drive it around at Burning Man. I eventually settled for a deuce-and-a-half, which caused enough struggle and frustration that I'm glad I never actually bought a tank.
- HWR_14 10mo ago
  What was frustrating about it? From time to time your exact plan sounded appealing to me.
  - dmoy 10mo ago
    If we're talking actual functional tanks, then they're expensive as shit to buy, and expensive as shit to drive.
  - herewulf 10mo ago
    The conventional wisdom is that you need to buy several military vehicles in order to get and keep one up and running. Some things are going to come broken, some things will inevitably break, and the replacement parts aren't exactly at your local auto parts shop.
- jimnotgym 10mo ago
  There is a market to buy a tank that originally cost $10m for $10k. You can drive it round fields and crush stuff for YouTube content. I think there is a much smaller market for people wanting to pay the new price
moomin 10mo ago
I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes.
- somenameforme 10mo ago
  I'm not sure there is any law against owning an unarmed tank. But for "dangerous and unusual" weapons themselves, an important case is from 1939 - Miller vs USA. [1] And it's absurdly weird. Basically the defendant was a thug with a penchant for snitching on everybody. In his final case, which he also snitched during, he argued that a law he had been charged under (a firearms regulation law) was unconstitutional. The judge who heard his case was very much in favor of the gun control law and had made numerous public statements as such, but he also likely knew that the law was on very shaky constitutional ground, and had been fishing for a test case to advance it. And he found that in Miller. So he concurred with Miller about the law's unconstitutionality! That resulted in the case being appealed up to the Supreme Court. Conveniently for the state, neither Miller or his defense representation appeared. So it was argued with no defense whatsoever. And Miller was found shot to death shortly thereafter, which wasn't seen as particularly suspicious given his snitching habits. And that case set the ultimate standard that's still appealed to, to this very day. This is made even more ironic by the fact that the weapon he was being charged for possession of as being 'dangerous and unusual' was just a short barrel shotgun, which was regularly used in the military. [1] - https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.p...
- ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
  > I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes. Probably because if people could buy tanks to protect themselves, then the police would also need tanks to deconflict a situation where someone with a tank is upset and the damages are a bit higher when tank rounds start flying around. Imagine two neighbors getting into it in a a town, not to mention a city. Even portable nukes are a stretch in the logic of "I need to protect my home" from intruders, not to mention the hundred kiloton yield ones.
  - deleted 10mo ago

Or, simply open up the sales of tanks to the civilian market. That's a joke, of course, but even if they were demilitarised variants there'd probably still be a market for it.

marssaxman 10mo ago

There definitely is a market for such vehicles: http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks https://mortarinvestments.eu/ArmouredVehicles https://mortarinvestments.eu/ArmouredVehicles https://miltrade.com/pages/military-vehicles-for-sale-in-europe https://miltrade.com/pages/military-vehicles-for-sale-in-eur... https://tanksales.co.uk/sales/ https://tanksales.co.uk/sales/ Ten or fifteen years back, I had an ambition to buy such a vehicle and drive it around at Burning Man. I eventually settled for a deuce-and-a-half, which caused enough struggle and frustration that I'm glad I never actually bought a tank.

HWR_14 10mo ago
What was frustrating about it? From time to time your exact plan sounded appealing to me.
- dmoy 10mo ago
  If we're talking actual functional tanks, then they're expensive as shit to buy, and expensive as shit to drive.
- herewulf 10mo ago
  The conventional wisdom is that you need to buy several military vehicles in order to get and keep one up and running. Some things are going to come broken, some things will inevitably break, and the replacement parts aren't exactly at your local auto parts shop.
jimnotgym 10mo ago
There is a market to buy a tank that originally cost $10m for $10k. You can drive it round fields and crush stuff for YouTube content. I think there is a much smaller market for people wanting to pay the new price

moomin 10mo ago

I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes.

somenameforme 10mo ago
I'm not sure there is any law against owning an unarmed tank. But for "dangerous and unusual" weapons themselves, an important case is from 1939 - Miller vs USA. [1] And it's absurdly weird. Basically the defendant was a thug with a penchant for snitching on everybody. In his final case, which he also snitched during, he argued that a law he had been charged under (a firearms regulation law) was unconstitutional. The judge who heard his case was very much in favor of the gun control law and had made numerous public statements as such, but he also likely knew that the law was on very shaky constitutional ground, and had been fishing for a test case to advance it. And he found that in Miller. So he concurred with Miller about the law's unconstitutionality! That resulted in the case being appealed up to the Supreme Court. Conveniently for the state, neither Miller or his defense representation appeared. So it was argued with no defense whatsoever. And Miller was found shot to death shortly thereafter, which wasn't seen as particularly suspicious given his snitching habits. And that case set the ultimate standard that's still appealed to, to this very day. This is made even more ironic by the fact that the weapon he was being charged for possession of as being 'dangerous and unusual' was just a short barrel shotgun, which was regularly used in the military. [1] - https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.p...
ExoticPearTree 10mo ago
> I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes. Probably because if people could buy tanks to protect themselves, then the police would also need tanks to deconflict a situation where someone with a tank is upset and the damages are a bit higher when tank rounds start flying around. Imagine two neighbors getting into it in a a town, not to mention a city. Even portable nukes are a stretch in the logic of "I need to protect my home" from intruders, not to mention the hundred kiloton yield ones.
- deleted 10mo ago