[privatedrive]

Hi - I am a supporter of the second amendment. Not a gun owner (but think about buying one).

My question is this - and I hope someone can help me:

Do staunch defenders of the second amendment believe there should be any limits to the right to bear arms? I mean, to take it to an absurd level, should individuals be allowed to own a nuclear bomb? And if the answer is no, then isn’t it just a question of where to draw the line?

Thanks Freeps - your thoughts appreciated.

[MrB]

This has already been discussed, and though I don’t lump you in with the left, they use the “nuclear bomb” and “bazooka” argument to justify banning semi-automatic firearms.

The key word is “arms”. “Destructive devices” like NBC weapons are not “arms”.

Basically “the line” is set by the military.
Whatever weapons the common infantryman uses should be available to the citizen.

[going hot]

Difficult to control the radius of a nucler blast, and fallout is at the whim of air currents.

Now, if we had interstellar capability, then I coud see arming the boat with a couple.

In terra firma, anything conventional is ok by me, provied one has enough property to cover the maximum trajectory of the projectile or fragments to keep them off neighbor's land.

[going hot]

Oh, and the noise. Gots to be nice, no shooting 155’s after 9 pm, stuff like that.