No. It is about race, in a significant number of cases. Just look at the statistics of people open carrying (or people getting shot at).

Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed. Please, try again. Be sure, your links point to differences between ratios of law-breakers vs. prosecutions by race. Any pointers comparing ratios populations vs. prosecutions are meaningless and will be discarded.

In the specific case of John Crawford (RIP), the poor guy that got shot down while carrying a toy gun to the cash register

A single case does not make for statistics.

but there is a clear distinction in attitude and partial/subjective enforcement of the law that still crosses racial lines

If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence...

You know that FBI Director Comer, the guy that started this BS a couple of days ago is a Republican, right?? The only thing I blame Obama for is appointing Republicans, as cover, to defense, security and law enforcement posts.

Except, the person quoted by TFA is Eric Holder, who is as Democrat as it can possibly get...

Off-topic much?

So if you want to "inspect" someone, just start a wildfire nearby, and you've got all the excuse you need!

Well, this IS Governor Moonbeam, after all... if he is for or against something, best consider cui bono.

That's great if I remember what the hell I'm looking for is named... and any linux user oughta know that filename, app name, and what it does often have squat to do with each other. Perhaps Windows is just trying to catch up on that front. :/

In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?

In a way pornography is consistent with the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Heck, much better than that: any militia — well-regulated or otherwise — can use such a rifle whether or not it has serial number.

The Constitution allowed slavery

Nope, there until the Thirteenth Amendment.

and no vote for women

Nope, the Constitution was silent on the matter until the Nineteenth Amendment.

We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time.

Sure. The point was, for any such laws to be valid, the Second Amendment has to be abolished (or altered) first. Hardly unheard of — the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, was repealed by the Twenty-first, for example.

Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document

I am making a legal argument, and I'm referencing (not "hiding behind" — whatever that means) a legal document — the Constitution.

Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles? What are the real distinctions?

As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, there are no distinctions. If you feel there should be, you need to discard (or reword) the Amendment — until then, any and all weapons are, indeed, legal under the Constitution.

The entire Apollo program was filled with near misses and serendipitous moments. Kinda scary to read about now.

The one thing the Feds can and should do and they are asleep at the switch.

The ability to trace a firearm is overblown. The majority of traces will lead back to a legal owner who had the weapon stolen. The other alternative is an idiot who buys a weapon, registers it, commits a crime with it, and then leaves it at the scene. Even then that is probably not enough to convict. You will have to establish motive and place them at the scene.

And if you have serial numbers then you are most likely in possession of the weapon, so finger printing is a far better investigative track to follow.

deeply-confused gun-nuts who thinks that banning guns designed for mass murder means banning defensive guns.

I don't see, where in the Second Amendment there is any distinction made. An 18-century cannon fired at the right target would be no less devastating ("mass-murderous"), than an M-16 today. Yet, the Constitution makes no exceptions — any arms can kept and any can be born.

If you wish to see any such limitations added, you should be arguing for abolishing the Amendment — not violating it, as is common practice now.

But, if limiting the weapons "designed for mass murder" were indeed the goal, why are the brass knuckles and "bladed weapons" illegal anywhere? I mentioned this mystery in the post you replied to, but you chose to bring up "mass murder" anyway — which means, you are not merely mistaken here, but are a liar (or, indeed, simply a troll).

Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to carry a sword with you?

The point was to demonstrate, that people harping on "assault weapons" and seek to limit the size of a magazine, are fools or liars. As are those, who try to limit the Second Amendment protection to the sort of weaponry available when the Amendment was written.

I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.

I should think, it is none of your business. Whether there is such "call" or not, as long as the Second Amendment is in effect, no local ordinances can (legally) ban any arms — certainly not those, which were in wide use, when the Amendment was written

That said, the brass knuckles, which I listed in the same sentence, remain quite convenient to carry — and will not harm your toddler, should he find them (another oft-repeated argument against firearms) — yet, you chose to ignore them completely...

I thus doubt your honesty and sincerity here and am unlikely to respond again.

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!