[GonzoGOP]

He is endangering his innocent neighbours with it.

Devils Advocate Mode

How so? He is merely possessing a weapon. Just like that 22LR you spoke of. If there are no limits you can't do anything until after he uses the weapon.

/Devils Advocate Mode

Or is there some limit based on the destructiveness of the weapon in question? And if so where is that limit to be set, and who sets it? Because the libs are going to want to set it at pointed sticks. So when they try we need to have our arguments fleshed out and responses ready.

I want to win this argument. To be honest I have never been able to come up with a good way to draw that line. An AK-47 should be legal. A nuke shouldn't be. But there is a lot of gray between those two points on the right to bear arms continuum.

[ArrogantBustard]

A nuke shouldn't be.

Did you know that private ownership of nuclear weapons acutally is legal? That almost every deployed US nuclear weapon was at one time privately owned?

Carrying one, for example, in an airport necessarily exposes other folks to a radiological hazard. Furthermore, the airport owner and the air carriers are no more required to let their customers bring nukes on their property than they are required to let their customers bring .22 pistols on their property.