Devil5052 wrote:Conversley, an individual claiming the right to walk down the street carrying a loaded flame thrower presents a very real public danger to no benefit to society.
How else am I going to help my neighbor get the coal fire started?
Flyer5 wrote:The tank for me would be recreation ya know plinking off woodchucks .
Must be some crazy mutant woodchucks on the account of your personal tactical nuclear device back in the shed.
Devil5052 wrote:I think all we can do is fall back on a majority view on what is "reasonable". Most of us have a gut feeling as to what is reasonable but it's often hard to verbalize let alone legislate.
If that's what is comes down to, then we're all in trouble. That's why I'm in support of adjusting this right only through the constitutional amendment process. Requires quite a bit more than mere majority view, as it should. We're dealing with a natural right to self defense and home defense, and the one civil right that ultimately enables all the others. Just because majority views have soured as of late on personal gun ownership and on what guns are reasonable to own doesn't mean that the majority gets to dick around with our rights without going about it in the fair and established way, by constitutional amendment.
All the rest about individual vs militia/state and reasonableness and urban vs rural and whatnot are really just ways to obfuscate and skirt the fundamental truth: The right for individuals to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment in both intent and plain reading of the time, and it will take another amendment to place restrictions on that. No one has done it so far because there have been judges willing to entertain the obfuscations in the interests of "practicality" and "reasonableness". The principle advocates for reforms have also known that their full agendas at any given time would not pass as an amendment and to only go half way in an amendment would potentially be fatal to the rest of their agenda once a new modern amendment is in place. So they nibble around the edges, ever so slowly, little by little finding their way to their goal while "the majority" nods in approval at each incremental step because little by little the people's minds are changed by less rural living, by teachers and interest groups and media indoctrinating the new way from the earliest ages, and constantly growing apathy for serious analysis and thought about anything political not immediately affecting "you".
I'm not suggesting there has been a 100+ year conspiracy to take away 2nd amendment rights, only that each generation has produced new anti-gun advocates wanting to build on the successes of their predecessors, touting an ever expanding agenda of disarmament. Nor am I saying all gun regulations are inherently anti-2nd amendment. Gun locks with all new sales, fine. Instant criminal background checks, fine. Required at all times in the home (unless being actively, immediately used for self-defense): unloaded, with gun lock, stored in a locked cabinet/closet with no visibility into the cabinet/closet, ammunition separate; way overstepping the bounds of the constitution (self-determination, self-defense, property rights, liberty, etc.).