Hacker

The Federalist Papers are mandatory reading for anyone who wishes to have any serious conversation about Constitutional issues with respect to what the Founders really intended. Folks should also dig deeper into the philosophy aspect of the Founders mindset by reading stuff like Locke's Two Treatises on Government (the second one being the relevant one). Although it was published well after the Founders did their thing, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is great foundational reading, too.

And yet, every day hundreds of millions of firearm owners do absolutely nothing illegal or immoral with them. This type of crime is still exceedingly rare, thus the logic of his point is still completely valid.

So, you would not consider the incremental addition of firearms laws over the last 100 years... - NFA 1934 - GCA 1968 - Brady Bill 1993 - AWB 1994 - the varied state AWB/magazine/etc bans implemented since then ...as prima facie evidence a "slippery slope" of increasing restrictions over time? BTW, the fundamental difference between a topic like gay marriage and gun control is that one issue is trying to increase liberty, and the other is trying to restrict it. Increasing liberty has no finite end...it is potentially boundless. Restricting liberty has a very specific finite end that it can reach.

Yeah...actually you are. There are plenty of legally owned fighter aircraft that are capable of employing ordnance, and explosives may be legally owned as destructive devices under the NFA.

Telling of what? That you hypothesize an unlikely lengthy series of legislative events, and want people to say what they would hypothetically do if they occurred? Yeah, we're law abiding citizens and we'd comply. Is that what you're so desperate to hear?

I keep trying to find the references to cars and hunting in the Bill of Rights, too.

That's the beautiful thing about being a free man living in a liberal democracy: it isn't about "need". The whole point is that free citizens are allowed to pursue whatever makes them happy (within the limitations of not violating the rights of others) without having to garner the approval or permission or validation of any other person or organization. "Because I want to" is all the "need" anyone requires.

...because if we just sacrifice "bump stocks" at the altar of gun control, that'll be it and they'll never be back for more, right?

For those who want to play the "civilians should not have military-grade weapons" game, I suggest you go download the SCOTUS case US V Miller and see what it says the 2A protects.

This is precisely why there are Constitutional protections -- so that the differing whims of men can't be used to arbitrarily decide these things for the rest of the citizenry.

There are not two classes of citizens in the United States. We are all equal...and all worthy of the same rights, privileges, and restrictions under the law. Police are not "super-citizens".

Every firearm ever invented is a "weapon meant for the battlefield". "Grandpa's hunting rifle" was a front-line infantry weapon less than 100 years ago used by doughboys to liberate Europe. This is a loosey-goosey emotional argument, not a logical one.

Good words. I retired in '15, so I haven't dealt with a move under that system (and I do not have a trust). That being said...a new tax stamp every move is BS itself...so still issues to solve for military folks.

She wants to ban Jerry!

While I would welcome the "common sense compromise" of trading bumpfire stocks for repeal of the Hughes Amendment and re-opening the NFA registry, there are real problems with the NFA, too...especially for military members who move state-to-state every few years and have to re-elicit CLEO approval to keep their possessions. We need to be looking at repeal/replace of the NFA, too, if we are going to kick that stone. Not that the rabid gun control people (who aren't interested in giving any ground on these "compromises") would be interested in that, anyway. I don't care about using bumpfire stocks, either -- not my cup of tea -- but no f'ing way I'm going to support some new restriction based on their use in *one* illegal event. We don't make policy that curbs Constitutional protections based on outliers and singular freak events.

One of the philosophical underpinnings of the justice system is that convicted criminals serve their debt to society by “doing time”. Thus, they should be entitled to all the rights of a citizen once they have completed that debt to society. We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen. Let’s remember that the Constitution affirms that rights aren’t granted by the government, they exist outside the existence of government. Protections in the Bill of Rights don’t grant anything to citizens, the Amendments are restrictions on government violation of existing individual rights.

Absurd, to use your words. A completely arbitrary restriction on a core Constitutionally-protected right because you *think* it should be...not because of any philosophical or legal underpinning of why, and proposed without a shred of evidence as to efficacy or specific purpose. The entire point of Constitutional protection is to put the burden of proof on the proposer of new restrictions to show specifically why those restrictions should be allowed, including proving that philosophical and legal validation and as well as efficacy of the proposal...because you don't just curb rights "to see if it works". The status quo doesn't have to defend itself. So, for anyone making these proposals, start off your discussion by making these points, rather than making the statement and demanding that others prove "why not".

There's a large body of clear philosophy and federal caselaw that covers this, if you care to study it. The discussion on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers (and SCOTUS case law in Miller, Heller, and McDonald) does limit the scope of its protection to essentially arms that can be borne and used by a single individual (vs a team or crew). US v Miller states that the 2A only protects arms that have reasonable relation to use in a militia. DC v Heller stipulates that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are within the scope of government power. That being said, can you show me that part in the Constitution where it says the conditions under which the government is allowed to deny people their natural, enumerated, and civil rights? Maybe you can show me that part in any of the Federalist Papers where the founders discuss that? Or any of the philosophical works that the Founders were influenced by? So, I don't personally see the philosophical or legal backstop to the restrictions that are given a pass in Heller.

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers. The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument. Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it. So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights. Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault. Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is. Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people. It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent. Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans. Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

What's with so many people willing to give something -- anything -- up? This is the strongest legislative position the 2A has been in for decades. I'm not voting to give *anything* up.

That sure sounds like a lot of sustained fire in that video. A big magazine and bumpfire or full auto. :(

They are not synonymous in the social sciences, and they have very specific meanings in the context of this discussion. Equality refers to the quality of being equal in objective status in society -- that people are all the same under the law. Equity refers to the equal quality of balance and fairness in society in terms of means and ways -- it is most applicable to discussion of relative economic means and perceived/actual social power. One refers to opportunity and access, the other refers to outcomes. One is the core of individualism. The other is the core of collectivism. But, thanks.

Race is neither an analog for culture nor economic status, FWIW. There are people from every race that have a "disadvantaged background". No race has the market cornered in western society on "advantage" or "disadvantage", because race is a meaningless quality in a meritocracy. Nonetheless, even when speaking of economic or social status, "equality" doesn't mean "equity." We don't have equity, nor in a society that values both individual liberty, egalitarianism, and personal responsibility do we desire such a thing. It is the "land of equal opportunity", not the land of "equal outcomes".

Can you give a specific example of this "oppression" in the United States?

It isn't worth the breath to even try and rationally discuss use of force philosophy with someone trying to attack the treatment their violent criminal relative received from a fellow citizen.