The types of force

I agree, Kriegs. There can be no compromise on this. He also seems to infuse guns with the sort of "inherent malice" that gun control advocates often do. They are not infernal instruments meant only for killing, whether as murder or in defense. They can be used for fun (target practise, plinking, competition or what have you) just like a knife can slice bread as well as throats.

Aaaah, now I get you.

Yes, I agree. My guess is that the concession was directed at the classic "owning a nuclear bomb" issue that always plagues this topic, but the effect is as you say.

But the fire of conviction isn't in it - certainly not to the extent you'd expect from something as deathly important as this issue. The author's writing doesn't come across as someone who believes this issue is life-or-death for him or his family. Like it's more a matter of principle to him than something he personally will not live without. I don't know if that is because he doesn't carry or if it is simply the style demanded of him for a press release.

But either way you're right Kriegsgefahrzustand.

Price is almost as good a deterent as anything. Tanks cost millions, and nuclear weapons cost even more, plus they have a particularly short shelf life and require highly technical regular maintenance.

Most nations lack the knowledge and expertise to build and maintain them, let alone private individuals.

Besides, honestly, so some millionare wants to own a tank? Why should I care, and why would I want to construct laws to prohibit him?

The reasoning behond such an act could be used to ban all sorts of things, one thing for example that struck me, was that such arguments could be used to ban alcohol.

Depends on the argument, I suppose. The only one I've heard that I see some legitimacy in is the one based on explosives and blast radii. The basic idea is that if you can't safely store it such that your neighbors aren't constantly in the blast radius, then it represents an objective threat. I'll note that this could only apply in an urban environment - if some rich guy with 2000 acres want to have explosives that he stores safely, I don't see by what right he would be stopped.

Would the same rules apply to my propane grill?

If you turned it into a bomb, then I suppose so. I don't see how they could justify merely having materials on hand in a non-volatile way unless they could prove conspiracy to commit a crime. Especially if those materials had a useful purpose to you, such as grilling. But then of course the discussion moves into one of conspiracy rather then merely Platonicly having "tools" on hand.

It all seems pretty arbitrary to me. Expressed intent isn't even a crime now let alone in some ideally just and objective society. Merely saying one is going to rob a bank does not rise to the level of a crime absent taking active steps in pursuit of the goal.

Conspiracy has always struck me as a 'crime prevention' technique, and it often comes uncomfortably close to entrapment for my tastes. Its like RICO, which although devised to fight organized crime, I'm sure we're bound to see it employed against businesses in the not too distant future.

Explosives also have plenty of legitamate uses, from getting rid of tree stumps to mining, to construction.

I'd also think one could make some pretty strong cases for the private ownership of military vehicles, I believe a stongly armed militia would play an important role in a free society. If the military is completely federalized without provision for private action, then in the event of invasion, violation of rights or permission of the violation of the rights of specific persons could become parts of legitamate strategy. Since victory becomes the goal, preservation of the lives and properties of every single citizen may no longer be compatable with that goal.

Any free country would certainly not exist in a vacuum, and the world has not nor should we expect the world to become any friendlier than it has been over the last 20,000 years.

I don't think that a just and free government can legitamately deny its citizenry the right to effectively protect itself from violence originating either within or without the borders of that country.

Fear of potentials especially is not a compelling enough reason to deny the right to self-defence, even partially.

Well, that was the idea.

But my thinking on the matter so far is that any forbidding of such things relies on proving ill intent or the inability to store them without holding your neighbors under constant threat. Notice that neither of those is ownership as such. But I'm open to hearing otherwise if anyone has it.

I'm certainly open to forbidding the storage or transportation of hazardous materials in such a way that it puts people at risk, as long as the restrictions are logical.

What I am opposed to is either a presumption of intent to harm, or an outright ban.

The more I think on that, the more I think that such things couldn't be justified. Assuming you have the land to store the stuff, that is.