One of the most frequent arguments for ‘gun control*’ is that the Founders would never have allowed private ownership of something like a cannon, battleship or tank. The problem with this claim is that they did allow private ownership of cannons and battleships. Therefore, it is unlikely that they would have denied private ownership of armored fighting vehicles.
The objection that the Founders would never have allowed the private ownership of something like a cannon is negated by a man by the name of John Stark. He not only owner several cannons, they were used in the Battle of Bunker Hill. In fact, one of his cannons is still used in ceremonies at the Bunker Hill memorial.
Then there were the privateers:
These were privately owned and armed warships! Not only did the Founders allow them, they contracted with their owners to help with the Revolution.
This is a good overview of privateers in the Revolution:
Then there is this:
If the British, who had a history of imposing much greater restrictions on the private ownership of weaponry, if they would allow the private ownership of an armored car — and in the late 1800’s, no less — why should we assume that the Founders would have objected to the same? Especially when the founders sought to make sure the People would have the ability to oppose an army that might be armed with such a new invention?
Therefore, rather than getting down into the weeds by arguing this point to absurdity, let us just agree that gun control advocates should concede the facts: the Founders did — in fact — allow ownership of both cannons and armed warships. And, given the fact that the British allowed private ownership of armored fighting vehicles, it is likely that you will find that these were allowed in America, as well — at least before the rise of the Progressive era. Now, by all accounts of reason, these examples mean that this objection has been defeated. So, can we please put it to rest and move on, as only the irrational will pursue it further.
[*NOTE: I use the term, ‘gun control,’ but this is not exactly an accurate description of the issue at hand. The issue at hand is — in truth — the pursuit of denying people their Natural Right to self-defense. As such, it is a form of tyranny as it is an attack on another person and actually affirms the Founders wisdom in providing us with our Second Amendment protections.]