Replies

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation. That place the burden on those who would restrict liberty to demonstrate no reasonable alternative would achieve the same ends and a lower price to liberty. I hope that clarification helps.

rogev:
In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?

By following the basic principles of our Constitution.
No infringements on individual liberties allowed.
18 jones

-- we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward).
21 rogerv

At #21 you distinguish regulation from suppression; - thus, you think our rights to keep & bear arms are qualified by an obligation to protect others from 'harm'.

Unsaid is your assumption that guns are harmful objects and must be regulated. Your belief is being used by government to infringe by over-regulation.
It is not a 'belief' but a fact that the government has not honored its commitment to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, among many others.
Indeed, -- we disagree on the basics themselves of what liberties people have, not only on what they "should be allowed to have".

In fact, your use of 'allowed' is a good illustration of how deep our disagreement lies.
How can we rationally institute changes in our society if we can't even agree on such basic principles?
29 jonestown

I am comfortable with as much liberty that is consistent with everyone have like liberty.
The only limitation I insist on is the same one John Stuart Mill insisted on: liberty is limited when such liberty would harm others.

One further point. I believe that regulation is consistent with liberty provided we always look for the least restrictive alternative when imposing regulation.
48 rogerv

Your last line illustrates again the gulf between Constitutionalists & Communitarian's.
Our governments were instituted to preserve individual liberty, not to impose 'regulations consistent with liberty'.