Replies

Our Constitution is indeed a check on majority rule stupidity.
A community [like the Amish] may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal, and can persuade their members to disarm themselves; but they do not have the power to implement that stupidity in local or state law.
Communities are constitutionally limited to enacting reasonable regulations on behaviors that violate others rights.

Our laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights. They never were. No nation or society in the history of the world has ever limited their laws to regulating behavior that violate other's rights.

Our Republican Form of Government guarantees exactly that in the Constitution as Amended. [see the 14th]

Can I make love to my girlfriend in a public park at noon? Can I walk around nude? Can I masturbate on a park bench? Can I walk around using foul language (at no one in particular)

No. - Reasonable regulations have been enacted, conforming to both community standards and our Law of the Land, that can charge you with the misdemeanor of disturbing the peace. - 30 days in the cooler might cure you of your masturbatory/sexual problems. - But I doubt it. You may need long term hospitalization.

All of our other rights are reasonably restricted. You don't care. But when the second amendment is restricted, all of a sudden it's a government conspiracy to suppress the people.

Wrong, rational people do care when majorities use the "reasonable" dodge to restrict rights for political purposes. Gun control is the ultimate in people control.

A handgun and a machine gun are basically the same weapon? If they are, then what do you care if the machine gun is regulated and the handgun is not?

Yep, they both shoot bullets basically the same. - And we 'care' because giving govt's the power to prohibit one makes them think they can prohibit both.

Just admit that your little theory about only regulating behavior that infringes on others rights is a dumb idea.

Just admit that your little theory, - that laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights, - is dumb.

The gun grabbers are working toward a double standard that will result in a conclusion that the government has to be allowed to regulate firearms and ammununition as "commerce". Under the substantial effects doctrine the argument is that they can't really regulate anything unless they can regulate everything.

When it comes to determining whether those regulations infringe on the the right to keep and bear arms, they will argue that it's a "collective" right, and the regulations only infringe on an "individual" right, which we don't have, so they can infringe on everything without having infinged on anything.