[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading the past few threads I've seen that yall have a thing for guns based on two main ideas.

1) Guns are essential tools for self defense and
2) Guns are needed in order to fight for our freedom (against ours or any government)

The question I have is where does the limit exist? Unless you advocate that all types of weapons should be allowed for personal ownership, there must be a limit at which the weapon becomes too ridiculous to own.

Is it a hand gun? a rifle? I'm guessing you will claim these are essential.

How about a sub machine gun (think MP-5 or tommy gun) or an automatic rifle (think AK 47)? These seem far less necessary.

Now we kick it up. How about machine guns? A SAW would be a great way to defend my home if 30 theives attempted entry where as my 6 shooter would leave me quite short. Or maybe a browning .50 cal on the roof, so that I could blow em away before they even got out of their vehicle.

Maybe I need a flamethrower or RPG in order to really defend my home. How about an attack helicopter to shoot down government planes that are infringing on my rights.

An agrument could be made that all of these could be used for home defense or milita security. Do you really think people need them all? Where does the danger to innocents outweigh your ability to really blow the crap out of theif?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the limit is at whatever the individual can afford. I simply cannot understand why we try to keep guns from the people who abide by the law when we know that criminals will get guns illegally anyway.