OK guys, I understand where your hesitation to engage in this hypothetical exercise comes from. I've also lived through the FOPA, AWB, and while on active duty was stationed in two of the worst states (though the military's restrictions on RKBA went above and beyond even those!). I too have been thrilled with the progress made during the last decade on the RKBA.
But it seems odd to refuse a hypothetical discussion because you reject its premise in principle when in practice you actually accept the premise. I.e., unless you're engaged in civil disobedience you have, in practice, "accepted" the restrictions you reject in principle.
This is not to question your principles, beliefs, or your intent to work within the governments' systems to try to correct things. But as we're all aware the governments have already trampled this right. The needle has recently moved back a bit, but again, if you submit to this system of government it's no longer a question of whether your rights will be infringed but how and by how much.
The original question was to suggest that we hold the "how much" constant and ask if there is a "how" you would prefer to the status quo. Another way to pose it is to try to imagine all possible sets of restrictions that might be as desirable to opponents of the RKBA as the current set (i.e., their indifference curve), and then pick the one from those sets you'd most prefer. I thought it would be unlikely every RKBA proponent would pick exactly the current set of restrictions.
Again: I'm all for a discussion of principles, natural rights, reform, and civil disobedience, but this particular thread was about practice. If you reject infringements of your RKBA in practice I applaud and support you. But for the rest of us who aren't in jail why not save the principles for a different thread and try this hypothetical exercise?
Last edited by dbooksta; November 21, 2012 at 09:50 AM.
Reason: Trying to make original question more explicit