[bmelton]

I acknowledge that it very well could be read that way, but Alan Gura (the attorney of record in DC v Heller) held in his argument (which was confirmed by SCOTUS) that it can't be circular reasoning -- e.g., you can't ban a weapon to take it out of common use, then argue that it is not in common use because of the ban to prevent it from being unbanned.

That was, effectively the case in Heller, because DC had banned all handguns completely, making them clearly NOT in common use, which they felt allowed them to perpetuate their ban. DC's law was overturned on that logic.

That said, how do you prevent the banning of every new type of gun/handgun/rifle/taser/whatever if the claim is that "Well, it's never been sold, so it's obviously not in common use, so it can't be bannable?" In reality, this isn't even really a gun at all, but a complicated aiming system. The gun it's attached to is the Surgeon equivalent of a Robot tuner on a Gibson guitar (which is why I brought it up elsewhere). According to the ATF, the lower receiver of a gun like this is the only part that is the 'gun'. What this means is that I can buy the lower receiver by itself, with no firing group, no barrel, no butt stock, etc., and that constitutes the sale of a firearm. As such, as it seems that all the tech for this thing is basically in the reticle (except for the trigger group, which is still not technically part of the gun), this is really just an accessory.

[abraininavat]

How do I prevent the banning of every new type of gun/handgun/rifle/taser/whatever? Easy. If I'm the dictator the first thing I do is throw out that sad excuse for an amendment. It's much too vague to be useful.

People hold up the Bill of Rights as if the amendments were etched in stone by God.

Whether any given weapon should or shouldn't be legal depends on a lot of things, including the state of the country at any given time. The idea that the right to bear firearms (some arbitrary invention) belongs on the same document as eternally useful rights like the right of free speech is silly and was a huge mistake.

[bmelton]

And that's probably why we don't allow for dictatorships in this country.

I think that the fact that the right to bear arms IS on the same document means that it was intended to be. You don't have to appreciate all the rights of Americans, but I really wish you wouldn't try to curtail them, especially as there are plenty of other places you could move that have, aside from the second amendment, similarish rights to those of America. (Not suggesting you GTFO or anything, but y'know, if you hate it that much, there are places you could go).

[abraininavat]

You were arguing so well, but then you sunk so low. "if you hate it that much, there are places you could go." ? Who implied I hate this place? I've suggested we should change it, in my opinion for the better. You've fallen squarely in line with those who would call me unpatriotic for not blindly marching along with your worldview.

I think for myself. You get your marching orders from some parchment. It's people like me who made this country. It's people like you who bowed to King George.

[shpxnvz]

> I think for myself. You get your marching orders from some parchment. It's people like me who made this country. It's people like you who bowed to King George.

I won't speak for bmelton but it's disingenuous to label second amendment supporters as folks who "get [their] marching orders from some parchment". Most I know recognize the right to self-defense as merely being guaranteed by the constitution rather than granted by it. The confusion I suspect is from the "parchment" often being used as a convenient argument - many in this country take for granted uniform agreement that the document does in fact bind the government; ergo to them the argument is trivially won by quoting it.

They do not always realize that those they argue against view the constitution as a "living" document subject to interpretation, and may summarily discard arguments that appeal to it's guarantees. It is also damaging to their argument that so many are willing to to support the government's disregard of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendments while fervently supporting the 2nd.

[bmelton]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think that's kind of polarizing. I am (obviously) a supporter of the second amendment, but I and all my liberty-minded peers support the entirety of the Bill of Rights, even where we don't necessarily agree with it.

The main thing that's polarizing it though, is that the ACLU supports all of the bill of rights except for the second amendment, so those that support the second feel like they're the only ones that are.

[shpxnvz]

To be clear, I was not referring to you in any way. I was just positing why the above poster may have concluded that those who speak out in support of the 2nd amendment are marching to the parchment.

Maybe it's polarizing, but there really are only two sides in this fight. There's no middle ground here - there is the ideal of freedom or there is "compromise". Not a compromise in the proper sense of the word, though. It is a pure loss, for you have less freedom than you started with and nothing in return. Votes cost nothing, so this compromise can be (and is) demanded over and over again. The end result is what we face in Maryland, never-ending iterations of legislation with no rational link to the real world, and thousands (like myself) who dream of moving to a state that is slightly more free.

[bmelton]

I was speaking pragmatically of course. Maryland is on the precipice of banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines", and as a result, I'm looking in to moving to another state that respects my rights more.

I wasn't implying that hated 'the place', but you clearly seem to have issues with the second amendment. You're of course welcome to try to change things, and I would argue in fact that it is your patriotic responsibility to work for the government you want. That said, a big distinction between America and most other first world countries is wrapped up in the second amendment, so if I were in your shoes, I would likely consider moving. As I said, I'm not telling you to get out, and I'm not calling you unpatriotic, I'm just suggesting that voting with your feet is an option available to you. As there aren't any first world countries that respect the right to bear arms for me to go to, that regrettably isn't an option for me. I'm jealous of your position, if anything.

I don't know how either of us "made this country", and surely neither of us are old enough to have bowed to any King, so I'm not really sure what your point is with your last sentence.