Self-professed "gun nut" on gun control

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2016, 11:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What is silly is comparing high powered weapons to guns in the first place.  It is a false analogy used by anti-regu;ation nuts who can not address the actual issue.

Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own air to ground missles?  Because any one silly enough to believe that wei need to arm citizens to defend us from the US military is going to have to be in favor of letting anyone who wants one to own tanks and anti-aircraft weapons.

Rail dragsters are illegal because they are too dangerous.  There should be no doubt that a lione has to be drawn somewhere.  The question is where. and in order to properly address that question we have to talk about the danger of weapons, not cars or motorcycles.  They are two totally different things.  People who try to claim they are the same are just trying to avoid the real argument.   

You compared a rail dragster to a car; yet it is "silly" to compare high powered weapons to guns. You further go on to compare ownership of a non-automatic, non- high  powered weapon (AR-15) to tanks and missiles.

You further accuse someone of "avoiding the real argument" by saying weapons and motorcycles are different things, while ignoring the fact that each have models within them that are higher performance and more dangerous. 

Of course I line should be drawn as to personal weapon ownership and currently semi-automatics (such as my .40 cal pistol) are on the legal side of the line and I am fine with that. Where do you think the line should be drawn?