in the way your describe.

Owning guns isn't a right, and it isn't socially justifiable in terms of cost:benefit ratio.

I reckon folks should be able to own whatever weapons they manufacture for themselves, from raw material. That would pretty much prevent the usual 'tards from having Glocks, AKs, or whatever. On the other hand, people who really understand operating dangerous machinery and the basic principle that you can't un-cut something (both of which are lessons that apply directly to guns) would have access to firearms if they wanted them.

The penalty for excessive stupidity would be having your shooter blow up in your hand, unless you managed to hurt yourself even earlier in the process.

As it is now, guns select for stupidity. A lot of the folks who think of them as essential can't even make dinner without burning their Pop-Tarts, let alone make reasonable evaluations of the consequences of their actions, proportionality, or risk versus benefit. We all lose when the predictable happens-- like workplace shootings, murder-suicides, drive-bys, road rage shootings, and "accidental" shootings (in quotes because 'tards with guns constitute negligence, not accident).

I could possibly get behind a system where your mom, your spouse, your shrink, the local cops, your boss or employees, and your bartender can all agree that it's OK for you to have a gun. If any one of them thinks it's a bad idea, it's probably-- no, definitely-- a bad idea.

"Travel is a sovereign right and is restricted in the way your describe."

Actually, the no-fly list just affects airplane travel. No-fly listed people can still get on a bus across the country. Travel is also not explicitly protected by the constitution. (Though it is seen as a fundamental right.) Moreover, it's hardly sensible to justify one travesty by comparing it to another.

"Owning guns isn't a right, and it isn't socially justifiable in terms of cost:benefit ratio."

Good old ipse dixit. Just saying something doesn't make it true. The fact is that the right to bear arms is pretty clearly expressed in the US constitution. Notably, any cost:benefit calculation is inherently based on subjective valuations just because the ratio works for you, doesn't mean it will work for others. For example, the founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms was at least as important as your right to vocally disagree with them.

"A lot of the folks who think of [guns] as essential can't even make dinner without burning their Pop-Tarts, let alone make reasonable evaluations of the consequences of their actions, proportionality, or risk versus benefit."

True, but I can truly say the same thing about cars, knives, or any number of power tools.

"I could possibly get behind a system where your mom, your spouse, your shrink, the local cops, your boss or employees, and your bartender can all agree that it's OK for you to have a gun. If any one of them thinks it's a bad idea, it's probably-- no, definitely-- a bad idea."

So, now I've got to get married, go to a shrink, and start drinking to get a gun? Seems like a formula for success. Regardless, this is changing the topic from one of 'anti-terrorism' to one of safe handling of firearms. Requiring trigger locks, or safety training as part of getting access to guns, is different than an arbitrary blacklist.

We don't let people on the list fly because of catch 22. We don't have to tell you who's on the list because of catch 22. We don't have to tell you why someone's on the list because of catch 22.

time has made it irrelevant. When the good ol' boys of the Continental Congress used the word "arms", they meant swords, pikes, bows, and muskets (and probably muzzle-loading cannon). If they could have gotten a good look at the sort of hardware used by Hasan, the Columbine kids, John Allen Muhammad, etc., I sort of doubt that they would have enshrined an unqualified basic right to it. Plus, their right to keep and bear arms, like most of their other enumerated rights, was pretty clearly just for white property-owning men (their in-group). I don't think they had any intention of guaranteeing gun ownership for slaves, Indians, or women.

The Founders were trying to ensure access to the tools of an armed popular resistance. That might have made some sense before smart bombs, nerve gas, and nukes, but it makes little sense now-- and clinging to the Second Amendment is pointless without including all those arms that would give us half a chance in a fight against imperial goons. As it is, we get all the drawbacks of living among unqualified 'tards with guns, but none of the intended ability to say no to overreaching authorities.

The difference between cars, knives, power tools, etc. and guns is that all the other things have many practical uses besides harming and killing people and other living things. Guns are for maiming and killing. You could really mess someone up with a cordless drill and auger bit, but that's not what it's for.

We seem to have our collective head on our shoulders when it comes to hand grenades, land mines, and sarin (which are arms that can be kept and borne after all), but somehow we have flunked applying the same simple and obvious logic to firearms.

the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant, perhaps it's time to chuck the entire Bill of Rights. Why stop with one personal liberty? Let's just ignore the basic tenets of the founding fathers, and allow the government to run roughshod over the constituency (just like what's already happening) without any possibility of legal redress. You're obviously not a firearm owner...sorry to be trite, but "guns don't kill people..."

______________________________________________________
Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

though I have not used one in this century or for a few years preceding. And I am a former hunter, though I haven't done any hunting since the 1980s.

Guns do kill people. Predictably. That's what they're for. The 'tards doing the shooting mostly wouldn't kill at all, if it weren't so easy for them to do. People from societies with less access to guns than ours, kill each other less. It is observable.

As an analogy: cars kill people, predictably. While it's technically possible to kill someone by hitting them while riding a bicycle, and some folks do manage to get killed by trains, etc., such occurrences are so rare compared to car deaths as to be insignificant. The relevant difference between cars and guns in this regard is that cars are useful for many other things and have social benefits that (in principle, anyway) more than offset their costs.

A knife is the bicycle of weaponry. If that were the most expedient available option for killing people, most folks who kill simply wouldn't. (In fact, they'd probably be more likely to use their cars. But that's another matter.)

The 2nd Amendment is already undone, and it has been at least since the National Firearms Act of 1934, if not much longer yet.

So what 2A proponents suggest is that even though the intent of the framers has been completely subverted by our inability to access militarily effective weaponry, it is still worth the cost in thousands of wasted lives every year for any 'tard to be able to have a gun any time he wants it.

I don't think it's worth the cost, is all. If we could have RPGs and Stinger missiles and truck-mounted 20mm chain guns and silenced sniper rifles so that the police and politicians knew they served only at our pleasure, I might possibly consider the cost in blood to be worth it. But as it is, all the wasted lives and heartache only buy tards' smug satisfaction in knowing they have guns.

where you're coming from on this, but I'd say motorcycle instead of bicycle. Just a quick question, since you DO own guns. If you were mandated by law to give them up...would you?

_____________________________________________________
Distrust anyone who wants to teach you something.

At this point I can say I'd never miss my guns. I have them stored (securely) away from my house, and I haven't checked on them in so long that for all I know they aren't even there any more. But I think that regular folks should get something valuable in return for surrendering their weapons. And I believe that valuable something should be non-lethal law enforcement.

If ordinary citizens turning in their guns meant ordinary cops not having guns available as a problem solving tool of first resort, that would be a very happy deal. I'd jump at the chance to meet my side of that bargain. But if the authorities did not use the opportunity to de-escalate, I would assume they were operating in bad faith and I would be tempted to hide my guns out of their reach, as would any reasonably vigilant person.