The fallacies have flown so thick and so fast I don't know if I can keep up with them all.
Comparing cars and guns is fallacious. Cars are not a right guaranteed in the Constitution for one thing. For another, if you lack a car when you need one, the consequence is that travel is more difficult. If you lack a firearm when you need one for self-protection, the consequence may be death, or worse.
Body armor is a defense. Regulating a defensive item that is itself incapable of inflicting harm is nonsensical. So criminals might use them to confound the police? Deal with it...put a .308 in every other patrol car. Criminals use cars too, sometimes to run down officers...haven't heard of anyone calling for an automobile ban. As for when a civilian would need one...when something goes bump in the night, I don't call 911 (they take forever), I slip on my kevlar vest, grab my AK47 and go check. Most of the time it is nothing... if it ever is something, I want all the advantages I can get. Body armor? check. AK47 with 30 round mag? check. Skillz? check.
The military consists of about 3.5 million individuals, last time I checked. The population is about 300 million. Nukes and aircraft carriers aren't necessary to protect against a government turned tyrannical, infantry weapons will suffice. This assumes all the military would side with the gov't, which I doubt.
Nor is "in defense of liberty against tyranny" remotely a view of the far-right fringe...it is a view of most of the people that I know, including most current or prior service LEOs.
What constitutes "reasonable regulations" will vary greatly depending on the individual. To me, NICS is borderline reasonable. A shall-issue permit for anything heavier than a select-fire M4 is maybe reasonable. A shall-issue permit for concealed carry (meaning they MUST issue you a permit if you have a clean background and pass a fairly simple course) is dubious, to be honest I consider it somewhat of an infringement but I accept it as a necessary step towards no-license-needed open-or-concealed carry. Most anything else I consider unreasonable.
As I've said elsewhere, if we kept murderers, armed robbers, rapists, 'hot' burglars and such locked up for life and never let them out after their 1st offense, and put anyone who accumulated 3 felonies away for life, and did away with plea-bargaining, we wouldn't need to worry much about felons getting guns....almost all of them would be in prison!
We need criminal control, not gun control. When we, as a society, say "enough coddling violent criminals!" and start really putting them away and keeping them there, in short when we have real criminal control in this country, then if there's still too much violent crime (which I doubt) we'll talk about gun control.
It ain't the object that's the problem, it's the scumbag using it.