You can inject philosophy in this all you want, but we're going to have to discuss this in the context of the existing Constitution, Bill of Rights, existing law, and the proposals presented.

We can't have a conversation then. Public issues are issues of philosophy. Go watch "Justice with Michael Sandel". It's a political philosophy course and you'll see how philosophy is intertwined with these issues.

There is a very simple discussion on this gun control proposal and it's relation to the Constitution.

Gun control and it's relation to the constitution is all about rights and their limits, hence political philosophy.

We're going to have to avoid the philosophical concepts of: "well what is a law?", "where do these rights come from?". Because, yes would be here forever.

I'm not asking for answers for vague questions such as where do these rights come from? I'm asking answers to questions related to the issue. The issue being rights and limits on those rights.

You can't separate these from the issue because they this is the gun control issue. You're making it about due process. We can't have that discussion until we settle whether we can even have limits on rights. Under all the semantics what we are discussing is the following.

"So are there limits on rights? On free speech? If so then the right to guns has limits as well. That means you agree to regulation in some way whether limited or not. If there is no limit to the right to own a gun then why is it different from other rights? If it isn't different then where is the line on who can own a gun? What can they own? Surely not a Humvee with a gun ontop of it, not a landmine, not a .50 caliber gun, a gattling gun. What about a gun that can fire 500 bullets a minute (if it existed)? 300 bullets a minute? 100 bullets a minute? 45 a minute? 44? 43? 42? 41? 40? Where is this line?"