For 2nd ammendment all the way believers, at what fire power is the line drawn?

I'm just curious.
I saw a kind of old interview with Kate Bennet (I think thats her name)
Thats the girl that got all the attention walking around campus strapped in the name of her 2nd ammendment rights.
She said she believes in NO LIMITS on these weapons because we should be able to protect ourselves from the government and should have no limit on weapons since they don't.

I see an issue with this logic. Even if we had rocket launchers and tanks we would still be taken out in 2 seconds flat with drone strikes and other technology that we would never be able to afford. So because of this fact that they would wipe us out with little efforts, I don't want some nutjob having a rocket launcher that he uses because he's jealous over a girl or something stupid like that.

I'm just wondering for hardcore 2nd ammendment supporters, where do you draw the line, if any?

 

I draw the line on what you can afford.
Certain types of arms simply need to be taxed appropriately due to the inherent risks they carry to others when used inappropriately.
Higher the precision the higher the tax, the higher the area of effect, the higher the liability.

 

One of the things that makes me a moderate conservative is that I believe a line needs to be drawn except I don’t know where. I think it would be cool to own a rocket launcher, but where would I get the actual rocket? I was once in a guy’s home where he had machine guns on the wall, all operable, but all they did was hang there. In Tustin, CA, there is a guy who has a tank on his property. He has the weapon, but he has no rounds to shoot.

I don’t think collectors should be told they can’t collect weapons of any kind.

With the more exotic weapons the mechanisms that fires them are out there, it’s just impossible to get the ammo.

 

Bearable, arms.
That's the limit. Don't like it? See the amendment process.

You can't tax a right.

 

I don't see a legitimate self defense application for things like hand grenades and rocket launchers. Basically, my opinion is that any weapon available to the police should be available to the public.

 

The right exists, the property is being taxed.

 

Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, neutron bombs, EMP devices, air-deliverable ordnance and ballistic missiles are where I draw the line.

The 2nd Amendment applied to man portable weapons. Hence the reason the word "bear" appears in the text.

You want to regulate indirect fire weapons, anti-armor weapons, FAE weapons, flame throwers, rocket launchers, rocket propelled grenades, rifle grenades, grenade launchers? Fine, got after it.

 

You can't use the tax to infringe on the right, because that's the reason for the tax.

 

The right to vote exists, the cost or hassle of getting an ID is on the person who needs it. Try selling that to the left.

 

IDs are free to anyone who can't afford one in all 50 states.

 

How does that work for poll taxes?

 

Guns are taxed now, nice try.

We have a right to IDs?

 

The taxes on guns (aside from sales taxes) are used to promote education on gun safety and the construction of shooting ranges.

The taxes you described are literally intended to make gun ownership impossible. That's unconstitutional.

 

A few folks around here will tell you even that is too much.

 

I'm not a 2nd amendment hardcore supporter by your definition probably. That said, I have no problem with people owning guns.

I have long taken issue with the motivation of many gun owners. Some, not all, claim it's to defend against the government. That's BS. The 2nd amendment was not written for that intent at all. Indeed, the US government has put down armed insurrection and rebellion since Washington. We did not write the 2nd amendment to say that the supremacy of the federal government was second to a person with a gun. And I agree that it's pointless but not because of the drones and other tech but because we don't have a means to make a federal government take over happen. Our soldiers are paid professionals from all over the country. They aren't going to march into Georgia on a whim order from the president. Outside of the Civil War, such a move would be impossible to make happen.

The other aspect of gun ownership motivation is over compensation. A gun won't make you anymore than you are. Some seem to act or imply it will. It's just a thing.

I'm OK with people owning firearms to hunt. I'm OK with people owning firearms for self defense. But some weapons shouldn't be allowed for obvious reasons, they will do more harm hunting or in self defense than good. A rocket launcher very much is one of those weapons. I'm also for ensuring people who shouldn't own guns can't. That said, it's impossible to predict the future and no means will be perfect, but we should try harder than we do just a little. The vast majority of people who own guns do so for perfectly valid reasons. We should try to maintain that integrity they show by doing our most efficient to keep guns away from people who would tarnish that.

 

Yes. No state can deny us a photo ID card.

 

"She said she believes in NO LIMITS on these weapons because we should be able to protect ourselves from the government and should have no limit on weapons since they don't."

I wonder if she believes citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons?

 

These would be for victim restitution.

 

No. That lame ass argument went out of style the second time someone said it. No one is talking about owning nukes.

 

How do you know what she meant? She did say NO LIMIT ON WEAPONS.

 

That doesn't sound accurate.
Without me, it would have been impossible for my son to get one. What if I denied him work privlages till he was 18, then kicked him out. Based on the requirements to get one he cant.

Plenty of woman that arnt on the boyfriends lease also have issues.

 

No line should be drawn. Freedom is absolute

 

The NFA is unconstitutional, see Bruen.

 

It's not a question of a head-to-head arms battle. The Vietnamese and the Taliban both ran off the American forces with far less weaponry in force and number.
Having the ability to defend generally makes defense unnecessary. I once saw a little guy in high school stand up to a bully, saying "you might make a meal outa me- but I'm gonna get a sandwich outa you".
End of threat.

IF you don't intend to do anything that will make it necessary for me to defend myself- why do you object to my being able to?

Crime is the issue, and no gun owner has any sympathy for criminals who use guns. It is the person who commits the crime, not the weapon, that we should be concerned with.
Recently a man that had been out on bail for 6 years on an attempted murder charge while awaiting trial, and who was on probation after a previous murder sentence when that arrest took place.... committed another murder. With a stolen gun.

If we had just prevented more honest citizens from being able to defend themselves, that probably wouldn't have happened.

Your logic, my friend.

 

Special property taxes designated to a general restitution fund isn't unconstitutional.