How do you figure that denying the average citizen access to thermonuclear weapons is a "hysterical" stand? That is precisely what the poster was advocating. I didn't take the debate to the level of nukes; that's where it began. (See post #16)
There are good examples of establishing rational boundaries to our rights. Freedom of the press ends where slander and defamation begin. Freedom of speech ends where threatening death or incitement to riot begin. Freedom to move my fist ends where my neighbor's nose begins. While the boundary between citizen arms and nation arms is more difficult to nail down, it does not follow that we should therefore abandon all restrictions entirely.
The argument that there should be a restriction somewhere is not nearly as ominous as the belief that there should be no restriction at all. I wholeheartedly agree that the current restrictions on arms are unconstitutionally severe. I'm no more excited than you to get to the Nerf bat level. However, it serves as no practical support to the 2nd Amendment to go around declaring that we should all be able to have a tactical nuke in our trunks if we can afford one, just to keep us even with the govt. I couldn't imagine a philosophy more detrimental to public opinion vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment.
I don't want my neighbors, any of them, to have nukes, nor anthrax, nor Sarin at their disposal. I don't think the founding fathers wanted them to, nor did they pen the 2nd Amendment to guarantee their right to.
The "hysteria" accusation belongs squarly in the laps of those who began the debate with nukes. I don't presume to know where the line should be drawn. I think its quite obvious that one must exist, however.
Unless you're a left-wing rag like the NY Slimes spewing forth all the false and malicious hateful things about G.W. Bush, or any other Republican. Then it's anyting goes.
Freedom of speech ends where threatening death or incitement to riot begin.
Again, unless you're a leftist "News" anchor, or a communist "peace" group, then you can suggest G.W. Bush should be assasinated, or that our troops should shoot their officers. That kind of freedom is unlimited for the left, but not the right.
Freedom to move my fist ends where my neighbor's nose begins.
Unless you are a left-wing union thug assaulting some right-wing "wacko" peacefully protesting your National Socialist president.
While the boundary between citizen arms and nation arms is more difficult to nail down, it does not follow that we should therefore abandon all restrictions entirely.
I would just like to see the restrictions applied evenly to both sides of the political spectrum--but they are not.