Parts for all former USSR based aircraft are very easy to come by hell the Mig21 is the longest produce Fighter aircraft every right now you can go to Romania and get brand new wings for $200,000.
As for working on them they aren't that hard to work on even Western Fighter are quite easy and don't forget there are allot of former Mechs out there.
As for Weapon System's the only one's that I know that are still Classified are the F-22 most Weapon System are left over from mid 60s tech that have been updated. Every scene the inside of the latest B-52 Glass Cockpit upgrade nothing has change since they came out of Boeing.
All of them with perhaps nukes and bio being the exception. I dont think allowing anyone to distroy potentialy millions of people acceptible.
I believe the most important reason for the 2A was to fight government tyranny. What good does the 2A do if we allow the government to ban high power weapons while they hold such weapons?
arm - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense
Any distinction you try to make is going to be flimsy semantics when the subject the OP is bringing up is the matter of 'arms' in the sense of weapons of warfare, as many interpret the second amendment to mean.
Chemical and biological weapons of warfare are just that... weapons of warfare. The do have things that distinguish them from other weapons, but those things do not make them into not weapons.
Essentially the OP is asking the question "Assuming the 2nd amendment was meant to preserve the freedom of citizens against the tyranny of governments, including their own, which modern weapons should be prohibited for individual ownership, if any?"
By implication, the question hints that assuming such an interpretation of the 2nd will devolve into an untenable situation, thus forcing a rethinking as to either 1) the meaning of the 2nd or 2) whether the 2nd is appropriate to our modern day.
It is a good question to be asking living document, organic jurisprudence advocates, since our Constitution stated this right (along with several others) as principles, rather than legalistically designed directives.
The originalists and strict constructionists, for consistency's sake, should probably consider it permissible to ban anything that wasn't around during the time of the writing. But, they are of course not consistent.
But, those who believe that the document was designed to adapt to the times in which it found itself should interpret the 2nd to protect whatever will preserve the original principles it was designed to. That being, the principle that people ought to retain the means to fight off tyranny.
So, we find ourselves in the odd situation where the originalists are making living document arguments to preserve the principles behind the 2nd whiles sticking to originalist arguments to destroy all the rest of our rights... and living document advocates making up toothless principles(truly being activists) to destroy the second while ardently preserving the principles that protect the rest of our rights.
I love the 2nd amendment because, for whatever reason, it makes fools out of both sides One side adopts the jurisprudence of the other, while the other adopts the loosey goosey jurisprudence they are always accused of.
I like Ideological Selectivism, closely related to Cherrypickandchoosism, both of which are umbrella jurisprudences where one picks and applies whatever jurisprudence will get the outcome that best fits one's ideology. Alito expressed it during his confirmation hearings, but nobody seemed to notice, really. It seems that this jurisprudence is the one that is flexible enough to include all the present jurisprudence, being offered by both the right and left on our modern Supreme Court. Without ever having realized it, all of our Justices have this jurisprudence as their common ground.
In any case, you are ruining his (the OP poster's) game with your own. stop it.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
I don't think Scorpian understands how quickly military avionics goes bad, and how impossible it would be to keep up with keeping such a jet in parts would be.
Note, before the secret service breaks down my door: The first sentence was a joke, and a lame one at that.
I know a guy who is rebuilding an A-6B and yes he has all of the Avionics including the Norden AN/APQ-148,AN/ASN-92 inertial navigation system and CAINS (Carrier Aircraft Intertial Navigation System) he is rebuilding it to a Iron Hand Bird.