[GonzoGOP]

So here is an interesting question. If the right to bear arms is a human right, is there any point at which you draw the line? I'm not trying to be a jerk wad or start a flame war, I'm asking a real philosophical question. Is there a line? If so where is it? If not what are the logical consequences?

I'm not talking little stuff the libs get hung up on like assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

If the right to weapons is a human right is demanding that Iran give up their nukes a violation of their human rights? I'm sure their lawyers will be quick to point that out so we need to have an answer ready.

Is the right to bear arms am individual right? Hence the line is drawn at crew served since that by its nature is a collective right. Or is the limit at some level of lethality. One person can make a species ending bio weapon, but should anyone be allowed to have unlimited power to end the entire human race?

[ArrogantBustard]

I'm talking full auto crew served heavy machine guns. How about guided missiles. I mean nothing says get off my lawn like a TOW Missile. What about nukes, chemical and bio weapons?

You have the right to own them. You do not have the right to endanger your innocent neighbours with them.

Just like your .22LR pistol

[Conservative4Ever]

With rights also comes responsibility.

[JRandomFreeper]

The founders used privately owned cannons and ships to defend the new United States. And cannons are crew served weapons.

/johnny

[Little Ray]

Arguably, crew served weapons don’t qualify as “bearing arms.” So, anything below that level should be okay.
Folks might need a license for crew-served weapons and up.