You just drew a red line, Krellin. A red line that says the right to bear arms does not allow you to defend your home with a bazooka unless you live on a farm.

Got it. Thanks.


@ Draugnar: When I call you a nutjob I mean that with genuine affection, honest.

@Jamiet99uk,

despite me adamant belief in the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, I would have a problem with any citizen, even a law abiding citizen owning a functional bazooka for self-defense. My reasoning is that a bazooka is NOT a weapon used for self-defense, it is a weapon used for destroying hard targets like tanks and bunkers. Further, the training needed to accurately and effectively use a bazooka is significantly more substantial than "small arms" traditionally used in self-defense. Bazookas, and other explosive weapons, are NOT effective at close combat/self-defense.

In addressing the OP's question, my "red line" is I think every American should be allowed to own a pistol (revolver or semi-auto), a shot gun, and a rifle (bolt action or semi-auto) with a scope. Beyond that, the weapons leave the realm of self-defense, and begin to cross into "offensive" weapons. Of course, the weapons listed above COULD be used offensively to initiate violence, but the right of self-defense MUST be maintained, and these weapons assure that. So, to me, a fully auto Uzi is not something that I think is necessary for self-defense.

As a bit of an aside, I think that every American should have weapons training whether or not they intend to own a weapon.

continuing...

I think by the time every American is an adult, they should trained in those basic weapons listed above, as well as tactical/marksmanship skills. IMO, this would would teach basic gun safety to everyone, and in doing so, it would instill respect for the tool, not fear -- and as result, prevent many accidents.

Jamie - NO red line. Own whatever you want (the "red line" question was specifically adressing where is the red line in ownership).

I am stating the principle of a free state, wherein you can own whatever you want, and use it however you want up to and until you violate someone else's freedom. In which case the state will violate YOUR freedom in reply...pretty fair.

@MichMan - I actually agree with all of your post above, except the requirement that everyone receive small arms training. Just as I disagree with the government forcing everyone to buy insurance or punish them, I do not believe the government should have a right to tell everyone they *must* do or purchase anything except where not doing or purchasng infringes upon the rights of their neighbors or as part of a requirement to purchase or do something else they want to do. E.g. you must purchase a dog license and keep it under control if you choose to own a dog and you must have car insurance and a drivers license if you choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.

@MM - who said a bazooka is for self-defense? I'll return to my car anaology...who needs a fucking 130 MPH Corvette? NOBODY...but they are legal...and in some instances *deadly*...so we should ban Corvettes?

Who the hell are you people to say one dangerous, excessive thing is OK, and another should be banned? They can all be used *safely*...and as such, should be allowed if and while used safely by people that have not demonstrated a social leaning towards unsocial/violent/illegal behavior.

Please use consistency in your application of your authoritarian dreams.

Remember, our Consitution is about guaranteeing freedoms and limiting government, not enabling government to force its way on its citizens. When in doubt, the rights of the individual are not to be infiringed upon and that includes forcing a pacifist to handle a fire arm at any time. It could very well violate one's religious freedoms as a pacifist.

That's why Obama hates the Constitution...

@Krellin - 130MPH Corvette? Hahaha. That's a slow ass Corvette! My 93 topped 170 and a new ZR-1 is limited at 195 I think. Remove the limiter and a brand new ZR-1 tops well over 200. Even my Mercedes C 300 sedan tops 130 (I've hit just over 140 in it).

@ Krellin:

"Jamie - NO red line. Own whatever you want (the "red line" question was specifically adressing where is the red line in ownership)."

No, it wasn't. You didn't read obiwan's post very carefully. He put the question to you, as follows:

"...presumably there are guns YOU find unacceptable for home use. So, what's the red line?"

You were specifically asked about where you drew the red line on keeping/using weapons at home.

I agree with you Draugnar about the gov't mandating training. I am not sure how it would be implemented, but I think it would be make a HUGE difference in gun safety.

I think it should be mandatory that everyone over a certain age (common sense, an infant won't be using firearms and proabbly won't be getting out of their crib to get into daddy's gun cabinet) living in a home in which weapons are kept should be required the training. A safe age for that might be 10 or 12 as the requirement and maybe even have a simpler class for under that age starting at say 5 or 6. And that training should be for all classes of fire arms, not just the ones kept in the house. And that additionally training should be made freely available to anyone who wishes it for firearms.

But a pacifist who lives in a home with no guns has no need for the training and forcing it upon him is a violation of his rights.

I couldn't improve on ckr's outstanding post.

krellin,

please explain to me how a bazooka can safely be used as a self-defense weapon? IMO, a line MUST be drawn somewhere. There are physical limitations to the use of a weapon. For example, a .50 cal truck mounted machine gun isn't the best weapon to use to defend one's home from a night-time intruder.

My point in listing those weapons is that they give the user a decent amount of protection/firepower, without massively increasing the likelihood of collateral damage -- especially if one used ammunition specifically tailored for close range self-defense. The same cannot be said for the .50 cal, the bazooka, and the fully auto Uzi.

A balance must be struck between the right the individual, and protecting the public. Gun grabbers would tip the balance fully to protecting the public, and gun nuts seem to want to tip the balance to protecting the right of the individual. Balance.

I believe all guns have a proper place in the ownership, but that some of them, the ownership should be limited to registered ranges. Perhaps the bazooka and the UZI should be restricted to checking in and out at a federally licensed firearms range. You could own it, but never take it out of the range. If you move and want to register it at another range, like a large boat, you pay to have a licensed carrier deliver it from point A to point B.

MichiganMan- -- Are you a fucking retard? A bazooka can be used 1. for PLEASURE....just like millions of people shooting guns at shooting ranges for PLEASURE.

2. If the country ever gets invaded...which is the ORIGINAL purpose of the right to bear arms, douchebag.

I'll bet the people at Ruby Ridge that were murdered by Clinton's Fed's wish they would have had a bazooka to protect themselves...

Some people live on multi-acres estates, upon which is would be totally safe to own and operate a bazooka. I stand by my *principle* that there is NO RED LINE. There is no absolute can/can not own in a FREE society. there is just a principle that you can NOT violate someone else's same freedoms...or else you get violated by the minimal government.

If I own a five thousand acre farm and want to build a giant brick wall to blow up and rebuild with my bazooka, who the hell are you to say I can't do this?

Because in most of the US, owning and using dangerous explosives is a rather popular activity!! Especialyl July 4th...so let's not pretend we are against dangerous explosives for personal pleasure.

I don't intend to engage with the issue here, just to be a pedantic English major.

@Krellin,
"If I own a five thousand acre farm and want to build a giant brick wall to blow up and rebuild with my bazooka, who the hell are you to say I can't do this?"

I'll be the first to say that you can't *rebuild* a wall with your bazooka.

@krellin - That may apply to a bazooka, but not to a full-suto UZI. You miss a shot and it can travel for miles, well beyond the range of your property. But more to the point, one has to take into account the *nromal* parameters of what is private property. There are far more apartments stacked up in new york city than farms of significant acreage in the entire country and the typical subruban home is built on a 1/5th to 1/4th acre lot. I have what is considered a large residential suburban lot at 3/5th of an acre. So laws must be passed assuming the *typical*. However, they can be passed to allow for waivers, so allwoing for a personal exemption waiver on something like a bazooka where the exemption had the requirement of no closer than 5 miles to the nearest city, 500 feet (1 mile) to the nearest neighboring house, and fired only on personally owned private property exceeding 50 acres at at least 500 feet from any freestanding structure not intended as the target of said bazookas firing would be acceptable.

@Hecks -- it's a Swiss Army bazooka...it has, like, tools and shit attached...

:P

And I will point out that there are big differences between freedoms and rights. Rights can't be taken away unless abused or used to infringe upon others rights. Freedoms have no such protection and are at the whim of the public at large. Firing a bazooka for pleasure is a freedom. Bearing arms in self defense is a right.

Draug - with a *properly* built shooting range, and the appropriate ammo, and can use my full-auto Uzi.

Don't play that game...you'll lose.

Bearing arms to defend is not a freedom - I can not produce a weapon from within myself, like I can speech. Weapons are a creation of society, and therefore bearing them is tied to that society.

Either way, I would choose to live in a free society where I CAN bear arms...of any sort...

I already stated a registered range previously. In fact, I suggested a new classification of federally registered range where high-end privately owned weaponry could be kept.

Sorry Draug - alt-tabbing between work and bullshit I miss stuff sometimes.

"So laws must be passed assuming the *typical*." I don't agree with this - but I don't care to tell you why right now (just don't have the time...)

But I will say the *bulk* of our screwed up laws have been written with exactly this mindset....which is why we have so many poorly written laws and unintended consequences...

Try to finish reading what I wrote. I said they should be written with the concept of waivers in mind to allow for exceptional circumstances. Just like a juvenile can't legally enter into a contract, but there are emancipation laws on the books that grant them the ability to and therefore allow them to be sued when they breach said contract.

...

So we're OK with Tanks and Bazookas being owned by civilians?

...OK.

Well, I guess one way to answer the red line question is "No red line."

I think that's crap, but at least it's an answer, I guess.