We need to have more educational outreach activities like this one, in which a liberal anti-gun reporter in Boulder, Colorado has her stereotypes shattered by taking an NRA gun course.

The woman obviously doesn't know what she's talking about: Ghandi was a decorated war hero who frequently condemned violence while turning a blind eye to violence by his followers. He supported apartheid and the British colonial system.

As far as Jesus and Buddha, you might as well "admire" Santa Claus.

Rand (and anyone else who cares to respond) - I presume you oppose government restrictions on owning guns on the basis of the Second Amendment. Do you think the government should restrict private ownership of more powerful weapons like RPGs, SAMs, and NBC WOMDs? If so, how do you decide where to draw the line between what ought to be legal and what ought not be?

FWIW, I think people ought to be allowed to own guns but not nukes, but I have never been able to come up with a principled argument to defend that position, and that has always made me very uncomfortable.

I'm not sure how principled the argument is, but I've occasionally drawn the line by saying that in line with what I believe was the Founders' intent, the Second Amendment should cover at least what a contemporary infantry (read then, militia) man would carry.

Which is to say that RPGs might be out, nukes certainly would, but that automatic weapons ought to be allowed. Of course, I don't support gun rights purely for Second Amendment reasons--I also think that having an armed society is generally a good idea, as long as it's also a civil society.

> the Second Amendment should cover at least what a contemporary infantry (read then, militia) man would carry.

> Which is to say that RPGs might be out

RPG's are specifically designed to be carried by infantrymen (and so are Stinger missiles), so either RPG's are in by this argument, or everything except muskets and bayonnets are out.

I don't know how precise the definition has to get, but I guess I meant carried by infantrymen for the purpose of killing other infantrymen, which would certainly eliminate the Stingers.

I don't actually have a problem with people owning RPGs, though I'm not sure how useful they'd be in everyday non-criminal life. It's not like you could carry it concealed, but I guess it would be good for dissuading even the most aggressive of muggers...

I'd be prepared to accept restrictions on carrying RPGs under the heading of "reasonable gun controls"...

> FWIW, I think people ought to be allowed to own guns but not nukes

Nukes are interesting. Right now, they're so expensive that anyone who can afford one can also afford to ignore legal constraints.

As a result, nuke restrictions are basically irrelevant.

I don't expect much from irrelevant laws, and I oppose laws that don't do good.

I don't actually have a problem with people owning RPGs, though I'm not sure how useful they'd be in everyday non-criminal life. It's not like you could carry it concealed, but I guess it would be good for dissuading even the most aggressive of muggers...

Remember Bernard Goetz? I remember seeing a political cartoon not long after that incident showing a couple walking down a subway entrance carrying what I think was a Sidewinder.

> I don't expect much from irrelevant laws, and I oppose laws that don't do good.

City of Marlborough, MA has a municipal law which prohibits detonating a nuclear device within city limits. The perpetrator is held financially responsible for all resulting property damage.

> As a result, nuke restrictions are basically irrelevant.

For now.

The average shmoe couldn't afford a musket in 1776 either.

Erann, I hope you didn't get that from Belleisles...

I don't have any problem with private ownership of firearms, up to and including belt-fed machine guns. I think RPGs and SAMs probably cross over into another category, however, in that they're pretty potent explosive devices. You should definitely need a license to own and fire high-explosive weapons. :)

Erann, I think you're misinformed about the America of the 1770's.

One good argument floating around is that having a nuclear weapon in your basement isn't exactly like having a properly secured gun in your house. It's more like having guns aimed at all your neighbors within the nuke's destructive radius. (I can't remember whose site I read this on...)

So, since pointing a gun at someone without a really good reason is considered threatening, so is keeping a nuclear weapon in an inhabited place. Hence, it's perfectly reasonable to ban private nukes anywhere near civilization. And don't even think of the tort ramifications of privately setting one off on Earth, even in the middle of nowhere.

On the other hand, this logic suggests that you could reasonably own personal nukes in space for propulsion, demolitions, and defense.