And as a quick addendum, if you're OK with this, I'll drag out a bit of terminology we've all grown sorely familiar with of late...

What's your "red line," as it were?

If it were possible, would 1,000 rounds per minute still be acceptable?

Is a grenade launcher or bazooka acceptable?

I have to imagine that even those here who are the biggest gun advocates would HAVE to agree...bazooka, probably shouldn't be legal for domestic use, yes?

So, what's the red line?

Folks get upset when Obama, Colorado's lawmakers, Congressman, etc. all say such-and-such should be illegal...

Yet presumably there are guns YOU find unacceptable for home use.

So, what's the red line? How do you reconcile that with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?"

And what makes your red line right and lines gun control advocates wish to draw wrong/unfair?

(And I'll add to that last statement--assume that the gun control advocates here are knowledgeable about the guns they're discussing, and not just "banning because they hate guns and never even try them." That's admittedly my stance--well, that I've never tried one, I don't hate guns, they're just like cars to me, really, tools that are necessary for some and a fun hobby for others but something I care nothing about except when others are harmed as a result-- but there ARE gun control advocates who know guns and have more experience then me, so consider them rather than me when answering that last point, if you will.)

Ah!

Maniac makes it all make perfect sense!

Oh, that was a quick thread! :D

"Maniac makes it all make perfect sense!"

Not a sentence you hear everyday.

My red line is somewhere between banning everything and allowing everything and if you cross this red line I'm sure I'll back down.

More of a yellow dash than a red line.

Why does anyone need a Lamborghini? Apart from excessive speed capability that you should never use, think of all the good the money it costs to buy one could do.

Why does anyone need a Corvette capable of 120+ mph?

Why does anyone need a "crotch rocket", which I often see flying past me on the freeway weaving through traffic?

Why does anyone need a twinkie?

Why does anyone need 100 proof liquor?

Get the fuck out of here with your fucking idiotic "I don't like it so you should have it" BULLSHIT.

People *should* have this gun if they are LAW ABIDING citizens and enjoy going to the range and firing unique weapons. It'd be funner than shittin' on Obi to fire that thing...*I* want one!

Fuck off, Obi and his fucktard friends - I do not desire either your selective outrage at societies ills, or your perverted since of what is/is not fun.

Lamborghini's are fucking sick. Lol..

And again krellin doesn't answer a straight forward question. What is your red line? Should people have right to buy tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons? Should they be able to take their side arms on planes? I can't see anything is constitution about such things so I'm looking for your guidance. You will no doubt duck and weave but as soon as you draw a line you ae saying exactly what you despise obi for doing 'I don't like it so you can't have it'. Or would you allow everything?

I would respond to this question in two ways:

1. Obi, you are asking the wrong question. The red line shouldn't be about limiting the rights of the citizens. It should be about limiting the rights of the government, which is after all the purpose of the Constitution: to clearly lay out the extent and especially the limitations of what the government can do. I don't have to justify owning a specific gun, eating a particular kind of food, joining a particular religion, joining a particular political party, or engaging in any non-destructive business with a consenting partner.

2. I know that doesn't count for the purpose of your question. I think a good standard would be anything that local or state law enforcement is legally allowed to bear should be legal for citizens. Given the regrettable militarization of our police forces, this means some truly awesome (in the original sense of the word: awe-inducing) weapons are going to be out there. But given that police are (or should be) citizens, not members of the military, then it is only reasonable that other citizens should have the capacity to defend themselves and protect the law-abiding using the same equipment.

Maniac....I return the question -- What is YOUR "red line" on "saving just one life..."

Because all you bleeding heart morons will *always* say "If we can jut save ONE life by banning guns..."...

So fine...let us apply your argument. What is YOUR red line on government intrusion in to your life?

I have made the argument *many* times for no privately owned vehicles, no privately owned housing, no individual kitchens, etc, because if the government controls *all* aspects of our lives, then we can minimize, and in case eliminate, threats to our lives.

Imagine if stupid parents were not allowed to over-feed and under-nourish their children. Imagine if you were not allowed to waste yoru life on WebDip, but instead were a productive citizen. All the good we could do if you would just eliminate your red lines on government intrusion.

I know that you will refuse to answer my question, so I will refuse to answer your.

And...I *did* answer the question...you and your *fucking* red line....arbitrary nonsense.

I'll tell you what, if you are a LAW ABIDING citizen, with proper training, then hell yes you should be allowed to own a bazooka. You should be able to take it to a bazooka firing range and get your jollies off blowing shit up. Why the fuck not? I have no red lines in a free society *until* someone becomes a threat/danger to other's freedom.

Anyone is allowed to drive a car - of age - *until* they demonstrate themselves to be a danger to society with a vehicle, and which point their priveledge is removed. a car IS A DEADLY "WEAPON" by the way, when controlled by people that shouldn't be in control of them...please look up deaths by automobile...

So same for weapons - play with whatever you like, until you demonstrate that you can't.

If you will say, "We don't want to demonstrate that you are dangerous with a gun, because that's too late..." then I say please TURN IN YOUR CAR KEYS NOW before it's too late and you kill someone with your multi-ton steel ram rod...

You do not NEED a car...it is just a convenience...so if you are so all-fired-up concerned about saving lives, please remove yourself from the possible act of vehicular homocide, *especially* if you are one that tends to consume alcohol.

Why are you morons asking kkkrellin anything?

Why are you morons enabling mentally ill obidork?

I'll answer for the drunkard. There is no red line.

You americans can murder more of your own children with 1000 rounds per minute.

So it must be a good thing no?

Oh yeah, and freedom isn't free. Yay guns; boo terrorists and american children.

Yes....ask Mapleleaf...fromthe land where semi-automatic assualt weapons are free reign, and the mass murder of children barely scratches the news.

Mapleleaf, you are such a fucking hypcrite it isn't even funny.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/18/guns-notorious-for-use-in-canadian-mass-shootings-still-not-prohibited/

But it is hilarious to watch Maple...the sad little Canuck...always living in my shadow and trying to suck a little of my glory to himself...just like EVERY Canadian tries to live in the lime light of the United States, without whom Canada would be a barren wasteland...

'cause it's fuckin tight as shit

next question

Krellin, you haven't answered the fair, sensible, and clear question asked of you.

Where is the line?

At what point is a weapon too powerful for a member of the public to be allowed to own it? If a 450-rounds-per minute rifle is permissible to you, which you've implied it is, you obviously don't draw the line there... so where do you?

Or don't you draw the line at all? Should private citizens be able to own howitzers, rocket launchers, chainguns, main battle tanks? Is that their right as long as they are LAW ABIDING?

Krellin - I note you didn't answer about allowing people to have nuclear weapons or firearms in an airport.

I have only ever once drove with more than the legal limit of alcohol in my blood. It's a long story. I'm in my late 40s and if I have a pint of shady when I drive it is very rare. When I was a child my uncle was killed by a drunk driver on Xmas eve, my aunt didn't tell her young children until after Boxing Day. Those kind of things make you think clearly about DUI. I have unfortunately killed an pedestrian on a crossing (completely sober), so I am fully aware of how dangerous vehicles can be. In mitigation I had stopped to allow people to cross and they had reached the other side, just as I set off a pedestrian stumbled and fell into my path, they were elderly and the tap from my car and the fall to the ground was enough to kill them.

Your analogy about linking gun ownership with car ownership is a good one. Everything we do from owning a hamster, driving a car, owing a gun and owning a nuclear weapons carry a risk. The difference between us is how we as a society decide what is a reasonable risk and what should be restricted. I think we should direct our government to pass laws on the balance of risk, and we should all then respect the law. You seem to think you can do what the hell you want regardless of what others think.

With regard to govt interference I think govt should be allowed to issue passports and monitor our travel, and prevent me from flying if they think I'm a security risk. I don't want to see biometric passports but if my govt introduced them, I would abide by that decision. I don't want the govt monitoring my emails, but also accept that if properly managed and with due oversight then such a thing could be good. Do I want to live in a dystopian world like 1984, of course not, but nor do I believe ever errosion in civil liberties means we eventually end up there.

And before you claim I won't answer your question in return, I will. You asked:

"What is YOUR red line on government intrusion in to your life?"

I'll give my answer. There isn't necessarily a red line on this for me. If the government is legitimate, and the state IS the people, then the people, acting through the state, can do anything they choose.

(Sorry that was to Krellin)

Jamie -- I did answer the question - there should be no red line for law abiding citizens to own and play with - in a safe manner - all sorts of weapons. Yes, own a howitzer if you want, if you can find a safe place to store and fire it.

Jamie - in a Free Society, the government intrudes ONLY when your actions will inhibit another's freedom.

So weapons are only for play, only for recreational use - not for defending your home and all that shit?

What if a LAW ABIDING citizen wants a bazooka at home so he can defend himself with it?

I'm all for a citizen having a fucking tank if he wants it and can afford to buy it. But when you consider the cost of pruchase, I doubt too many will manage to have them.

Personally, I want my own WWII submarine. A German U-Boat if I could find one, complete with torpedos and deck gun.

Nutjob.

Socialist pig.

Good luck getting a torpedo-filled Nazi sub...

I can ad hominem with the best fo them, jamie.

@bo - German and WWII doesn't have to mean Nazi. Not all soldiers or sailors were Nazis in spirit and the German war machine existed long before the Nazi party came to power. Hell, they had the best subs of WWI under the Kaiser.

Jamie, I know all sorts of people that *shoot for pleasure*, and that is why they own guns. There are all sorts of shooting competitions...ever watch the fucking Olympics!?!!?

I also didn't say a citizen can own a bazooka at home for defense...clearly blowing up high explosives in a neighborhood is going to possibly affect the neighbors...but if he wants to own a bazooka and shoot it at the range, why the fuck not?

Freedom is free until you impinge upon another's freedom...home bazooka use violates this principle...unless you live on a farm.

Ohhh....killing that old horse you have to put down with a bazooka would be *awesome*...

Better yet...bazooka the armed robber in your home...no need to waste money on a trial...lol