Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[Taem]

The few posts about size of weapons were all wrong anyway. Let's not forget that 'the army' in the days the 2nd amandment was made....

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with my post in regards to THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE and principle of THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED? It is very clear in that article I quoted why some weapons should be discriminated against based on their chance to cause harm to innocents. You are clearly offering a strawman argument to evoke a response from posters to defend their right to own "any" weapon, just so you can point out later how ludicrous that is; your anti-gun sentiment shines through! Try re-reading this and realize just how anti-gun you come across:

Anyway nothing will change, the NRA and weapon industry can write extra good profits every time something awful happens because gun sales go through the roof and it is always best just to trust big and powerful cooperations. (who interestingly enough are the ones that sell guns to the army that all those 2 amandment nutters are afraid off).

----------

So if one can argument that it is not a good idea to allow people to own patriot missiles or mortars i can argument that you can also just draw the line at knives, or clubs instead of automatic rifles.

There was this also;

So if the 2nd amandment is your argument you should also allow the public to buy bigger stuff. Everybody know you don't stand a chance with a simple 6-shooter against armored vehicles patrolling your streets.
So or you agree with me that the 2nd amandment is really outdated and makes as much sense as literally following the bible or you don't agree and think it is really necesarry to defend yourself, but then you should also be consequent and allow bigger weapons to be bought.

Giving ultimatums that citizens should be allowed to have any type of weapon OR that the 2nd amendment is broken is the pinnacle of your strawman argument right there. By reasoning citizens should be allowed to have their own "big weapons", and by this I assume you mean nuclear warheads, and you based that on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then I find it hard to believe any rational conversation about gun ownership can be produced using such extremes.

Besides, it seems President Obama disagrees with you: assault weapons ban.