just curious, so here's a question -- both for those who are pro-gun control and anti-gun control:

IF you draw the line in the sand, where would you draw it as far as banning weapons?

the beach in California

c'mon. seriously. should we ban any weapons? what should we ban? where's the cut-off? what's the limit?

I don't know that much about guns to give an educated answer.

But my gut reaction is to say if the military uses it then private citizens should not.

Do What??? I'm confused here??

Do you mean where do I stand with the Second Ammendment?

If so I would draw a line pointing to our Second Ammendment Rights... it is a peoples choice, now from that the States have their laws set in place and this also is the peoples choice to abide or not...

Personally I think if everyone had a right to carry (who did not have a conviction on record) there would be less trouble in America today!!! look at the crime rates in the states who have this right to carry...

Hog

Ban any?? Nope... there are laws for full auto's... you have to be a class 3 dealer.. and to be one you have to pay ungodly for the permit and keep up the ungodly insurances...

Hog

So if I don't have a crime record I can walk into Starbucks and order a double latte tall with a flame thrower and a fuel tank strapped to my back? Yes this will cause much less problems.

"But my gut reaction is to say if the military uses it then private citizens should not."

So that would include all 9MM .45 cal and .40cal Handguns
Pump action shotguns. Autoloading shotguns .22 cal rifles, .38 cal revolvers
.177 cal pellet rifles etc????????????????

I'm OK with the notion that private citizens don't need automatic weapons in their possession. But aside from that, I don't think any other class of guns need to be more regulated than they already are. I'm all for mandatory waiting periods and background checks.

Plabonte, only if your in a starbucks in Lebanon, Syria or Iran... then it wouldn't be thought twice about...

but flame throwers are not Guns...LMAO!!

Hog

What EI said.

I want the right to own whatever my military has. M1A1s and Warthogs would be nice, but a carrier might break the bank. I have no criminal record and no history of violence (toward innocent people).

Seriously, though I don't like putting limits on what the people can own.

Ok I retract my statement of the military as I obviously don't know what weapons they use.

"but flame throwers are not Guns...LMAO!! "

Funny I thought the second amendment was the right to bear arms not the right to bear guns. Is not a flamethrower and arm? Therefore it is guaranteed under my second amendment right.

LMAO!!!! well I'm looking at it from a standpoint of our Forefathers... they didn't have those in the day....

Hog

Actually, Cavallo, you make a really good point here. Where do you draw the line? I always try to use logic to dictate my opinion on such issues. At least that way, I'm consistent.

To answer your question, ???????. I don't know. Obviously, I line has to be drawn somewhere. There's no need for weapons designed specifically to destroy large vehicles or structures. There's no need for ammo that is designed specifically to pierce armor worn by police -- or is there? What if an intruder has that kind of armor? What if you fall victim to a "bad cop"? What if the government has become too big for its britches and you need to defend yourself from police? Isn't that what the 2nd amendment is designed to allow? This discussion can last forever, but it's a worthy discussion nonetheless. We need to keep our arms, but what should that mean. The line should definitely be drawn -- but where?

Very good point, Cavallo.

What happens when the tanks come rolling up your street. Bet that kid in Tenimin Square wished he had a RPG. Yeah I know...he backed the tank down... But what you didnt see is when the cameras were off he became tread grease

That is true Hog. But they also didn't have 9MM .45 cal and .40cal Handguns Pump action shotguns, autoloading shotguns .22 cal rifles, .38 cal revolvers
.177 cal pellet rifles, etc

A firearm never hurt anybody. They do however have the capability to do bodily harm and they could in fact inflict wounds that are fatal.

So I guess we need to put restrictions on them....

But wait a minute...

What about automobiles...they also have the same capabilties to do bodily harm as a firearm....hmmmm. Anybody can get a car. No waiting, no background checks. But yet cars kill thousands of people each year because it is our right to own one.

Just a thought.

Not the same thing BeatDragon. A guns SOLE purpose is to kill.

Beat their going to take your drumsticks away... You could put somebody's eye out with that thing.. LMAO!!!

or ram it in somebody's ear...

Plabonte, your right... it all comes down to what fire "arm" your comfortable with.. myself I prefer the SR Redhawk 44 Mag.. for home and other defence.. now I lean to my Rem 870 12 guage and 20 guage for all my hunting activities... ;0)

Hog

plabonte,

Im not debating what the purposes are. (As a side note, I do know several gun owners that only use there firearms for target shooting NOT killing) But weather one has the "RIGHT" to own/use a lethal weapon.

So to the list we must add...

Bows
Boomerangs
Wrist Rockets
Knives
Baseball Bats
Tire Irons
Hammers
etc etc etc...

If "THEY" (the people deemed unfit to own a gun) didnt have guns to kill, they would find somethng else. Granted guns make it easier, but there a lots of ways to off someone.

And if yer man enough Hog, you can come take my drumsticks away...HA!