I’ve read your articles on Medium with your suggestions on firearms registries, using chip cards, and the like. I don’t particularly agree, but will also concede that maybe there are a few ideas there worth exploring.

As I mentioned in my previous response, you and I can debate the 2nd amendment for eternity. Your assertion that ownership of a firearm is a right, is not in dispute. What is in dispute, is whether or not that right includes all firearms. By citing the current case law, you infer that it will always be interpreted to be this way, that it cannot change. You’re using a court case that specifically addressed the ownership of guns in the home to make broad assertions regarding all guns currently available because of one statement in the decision that says “in common use”. You’re ignoring the Court’s reasoning that explicitly says, “central to this right is the inherent right of self defense; that the home is where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute, and that above all other interests the second amendment elevates the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” My assertion is that defense of self, family, and home will not be taken away from any citizen by banning assault rifles. In fact, there are a slew of weapons better suited for the job that leaves said right in tact.

Furthermore, the court has NOT considered gun control laws (like the National Firearms Act) to be unconstitutional. Additionally, in the dissent, Justice Breyer found that, “if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun…There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning “

So, stating that my proposal to ban assault weapons because of one phrase “in common use” is unconstitutional, on it face, falls flat. Case law evolves Jim.

There was a time when constitutionally, blacks were not considered to be persons, but property. You want to argue about what the constitution IS, and I want to discuss what the constitution should be, as we as a society face new challenges/needs. The constitution changes as the needs and opinions of society change, Jim. What you’re doing is pounding your fists on the table and saying, “BUT ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION! I LIKE MY ASSUALT RIFLE YOU CANT TAKE IT AWAY”. Im saying that as a society, we can decide that we want a policy change, our lawmakers can write that policy into law, and yes Jim, the decisions of the Supreme Court CAN CHANGE.

When I ask you to consider my DUI analogy, you’re strangely confusing a basic issue.

“Can you point me to any recognized right to operate a motor vehicle on public land”

Yes, I can Jim. I cant believe I actually have to explain this to you, but here goes. The RIGHT, is the RIGHT to travel.

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty…It includes the right in doing so using the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day (does that remind you of another court decision that says in common use, Jim?) Thompson v Smith

“The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th amendment” Kent v Dulles

You are missing one of the most obvious points of my position. An individual has a RIGHT to travel, and we regulate the mechanism. We regulate the hell out of the auto industry Jim. We don’t allow ALL vehicles to drive on our public roads, yet the courts have said “ordinary and usual conveyances of the day”. We have decided as a society, that we are better served as a collective, when we authorize automobiles that have seatbelts, that have turn signals, and bumpers. By regulating those things, we increase survivability, decrease lethality and overall increase the public good. Just like my article states, just as no one implies that denying certain vehicles on the road will end all auto accidents, I do not imply that removing assault rifles will end mass shootings. I do believe, that we will increase survivability, decrease lethality, and overall increase the public good. What I cant believe I have to explain to you is that yes, an individual citizen has a RIGHT to travel, and we as a society regulate the mechanisms. Taking away an assault rifle is a regulation of a mechanism, because (the argument of my article is) we as a society recognize it benefits all of us.

You’re missing this incredibly basic concept. I have a RIGHT TO TRAVEL Jim (Yes, that means drive my car on the road). It’s also legal for me to drink. In fact, its legal for me to do both at the same time, but we as a society have put limitations on how far we are willing to let that go because it serves the public interest.

You are so blindly interested in defending your own point of view, that you aren’t even willing to consider the opinions presented in my article, and throw ideas back and forth to see if we can figure out a solution. You are so interested in arguing rights, that you’re missing the premise of my analogy. I don’t understand why you are unable to sit back and think to yourself, “Hm, I don’t necessarily agree with this idea, but that doesn’t automatically make it wrong”.

You are also apparently incapable of saying to yourself, “I lack the same experience this street cop has. Although I don’t like it, perhaps I should take a few minutes to consider his experience and just maybe reconsider my opinion” Instead, you have this ridiculous need to prove your point to be the RIGHT one. You want to argue, not discuss. You’re displaying a perfect example of what I describe in the first paragraph of my article- only your position can be the RIGHT one. The only thing that you have PROVEN, is that you like your assault rifles, you want to own one, and that they’re great because they are customizable.

For all of those same arguments lets bring back machine guns and sawed off shotguns to the public domain Jim.

This will be my final response to your posts, as it has become painfully obvious you don’t want to discuss, but want to pound your fists on the table and say “IM RIGHT”.