I look at Federalist 46. According to James Madison, the 'militia' is the common people. I don't use the term 'militia' much because of what people nowadays think of with the militia, but that's what the militia was intended to be. US CODE seconds what Madison said.
Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?
My opinion - All but felons. Felons shouldn't be able to vote either.
How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine.
That can be applied to the 1st amendment as well. TV? Internet? Radio? Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?
They had cannons back then. I look at what could be "beared". I can't bear a tank. I have no problem with machine guns, or even grenade launchers. Rocket launchers I'm a little nervous on, but still, if the person hasn't committed a violent felon, what threat does a law abiding citizen with even a rocket launcher poses to society? I wouldn't kill people with one.
If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?
The NRA has compromised. Many times. Sometimes too much so(I still like them anyway though as they are the best we got). The other side doesn't compromise. I look at it as a matter of trust more than anything else. If you don't trust me with a firearm, why should I trust you?
There would be no Constitutional problem with a state imposing lifetime slavery as a punishment for certain crimes and allowing such slaves some freedoms while denying the right to keep and bear arms or the right to vote. Nonetheless, I don't see such lifetime impositions as being a good idea except for crimes which also justify lifetime imprisonment.
If someone who, e.g. writes a bad check for $500, is forever branded as a serf for having done so, that aspect of his punishment can only be imposed once (once his freedoms have been lost, he has none left to lose). Consequently, the punishment for his first crime will be in many ways greater than the punishment for future crimes. This is not good.
If part of the goal of punishment is to deter future crimes, I would think it more effective to provide that someone who goes 'straight' for a suitable number of years should have their full rights restored. While I know that this is theoretically possible today, restoration of rights is today generally at the whim of whatever judge hears a felon's petition. Consequently, the fact that a felon could possibly have his rights restored if he goes straight isn't apt to provide much of a disincentive to future crime. By contrast, if there were well-defined criteria (e.g. felon must be crime-free through any probation/parole, and then for an additional term of years equal to the original sentence) felons might go straight in the hopes of achieving them.