. “In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit” (Ayn Rand).

The federal government itself is the greatest threat to liberty, to privacy, to free speech, etc. It has been so for more than 150 years and has become worse in every decade.
Restricting people without criminal records from owning military style weapons will drive the next nail into the coffin of individual liberty.
There is no rational scenario where I trust the federal government to stop the restriction at that point. There is no rational scenario where the federal government would not take control of all military weapons of any militia members that might resist a dictatorship.
Government is the greatest enemy and private ownership of the same weapons that the infantry use is the only thing that restrains the federal government today.
That is the objective context that matters most.

So, no. I do not consent to have my 2nd amendment right abridged and I will never agree.

Libertarianism at its core is about maximizing freedom short of abolishing the federal government. In order to protect freedom, one must have the tools to defend that freedom.
"Gun control" is a paradoxical hodgepodge of shoddy policy aimed at fooling the ignorant but well-intentioned into slowly giving up their right to self-defend. I'm afraid I have a hard time believing this is an Objectivist ideal.

A couple of comments regarding the article.

First, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." That is pure progressive propaganda. Firearms never assault people - people assault other people using everything from firearms to knives to vehicles to words to fists - only to name a few. Proper care must always be taken to refer to firearms by either their form-factor (rifle vs handgun) or their operation (semi-automatic, full-automatic, bolt-action, etc.) or their caliber. The nonsense moniker "assault weapon" should never be used by a responsible journalist.

Second, you mention "Let us try a ban on military-style weapons and large magazines under a law enacted for a decade with automatic lapse after 10 years unless renewed by a two-thirds vote of Congress." That was already tried in the 90's. It was called the Brady Bill and analysis by the FBI indicates that it did nothing to control violence committed with firearms. I have even seen some reports that show that firearm violence went down following the termination of the Brady Bill - and where firearm violence actually increased slightly during the bill.

What is the best form of firearm "control"? Proper respect for and observation of the rules of firearm operation as follows:
1) Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded.
2) Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3) Never put your finger on the trigger until you are willing to destroy something.
4) Know what is beyond your target because it too may be destroyed.

I would also note that it used to be common for students in high school to be part of school-sanctioned firearms instruction and clubs. And yet that participation never yielded mass shooters or even school shootings. It was common for students to take their firearms on racks in the backs of their trucks to school, yet there were no school shootings. So I would ask: what really has changed: the firearms, or the ideologies of those using them?

No one here can "Control" their personally owned guns until they put their hands on them. The Government can't control our personally owned guns either until it gets their grubby hands on them.
Government control of guns depends strictly on the Gov. knowing who and where the guns are. Background checks give the Government nothing more than the info they so feverishly want. There are only two distinct types of guns, those that are legally owned and those that are illegally possessed by individuals barred from owning them.

Assault Rife..... what does that mean?
Military-Style.... . what does that mean?

Its not the weapon that's the problem.

This is a ridiculous argument, lacking logic.

- The weapons suggested to be "controlled" are used in a tiny fraction of crimes.
- The only way these weapons are really going to be made unavailable to insane people is to eliminate them all, not restrict their sale. I have several scary black rifles, all registered and all legal, and a 120 round magazine that is pre-ban, and legal, even in the People's Republic of MA. Is your plan to go around and steal these from the present owners? If not, 5-10 million of them remain in the public.
- Even if you assume you can get rid of the ARs, any semi-automatic rifle would do just fine, and making a large capacity magazine is trivial. You can 3-D print them. An M1A, M1 carbine, Mini-14 and innumerable other rifles would do just what an AR will do in this scenario.
- As much as people don't like it, the AR is now America's Rifle. it is simple, ergonomic, accurate, easy to work on, and everywhere. There are more ARs than just about any other individual rifle.

This is just another chip in freedom, that solves no problem, and adds more power to the demonstrably power-hungry Government.

How about the law be passed that does this:
Limit the sale of "assualt rifles". Define the success criteria (e.g. a reduction in mass shootings by 75% as measured by...). If this criteria is not met, the Second Amendment is automatically updated and ratified with new wording: "The right of the individual to keep and bear any arms that can be used and carried by an individual shall not be infringed." Now we are getting somewhere. Not some ridiculous future vote-lottery, a law with a desired effect, a clear measurable metric for success and clear outcomes for success and failure of the objective.

Or... how about this... We ask/require (you pick) the media to be responsible. Mass shootings are reported simply and factually. Then we legally libel the assailant as a pimple faced, pencil-dicked, little bedwetting coward that pathetically did this to get attention...and failed, since even armed with a gun, the people he was shooting at laughed at how pathetic he was, and whne he was finally caught he was such a coward he soiled himself before the the authorities put him out of everyone's misery. We have already forgotten his name, and made dog food out of his remains, since burying him was a waste of dirt.

See how many little weirdos want to go out in a blaze looking like that.

These alternate approaches take almost no freedom from anyone, and I bet is it significantly more effective than your Elizabeth Warren plan.

I can't believe this nonsense was published in this forum, and hope it was a test.

Because some loony goes out and shoots a bunch of people, you want to restrict my Constitutionally provided right to keep and bear arms? Thanks, but I'll pass.

Argumentum ad absurdum as far as I'm concerned.

The idiot seems to forget what he proposes was tried during the Clinton administration, a ban on military style weapons. After ten years, the Bush administration dropped it, as it had made zero difference in homicide by firearm.

Rather than expanding background checks to private sales, I would revise the HIPAA laws that restrict mental health information from involuntary disclosure, and allow the FBI to include that in the NICS database. That would be a step toward meaningful restriction on unstable persons owning military style weapons. For private sales, make the seller responsible for ignorant sales to dangerous persons. A few lawsuits that result in big monetary judgements would quickly make personal responsibility foremost in the minds of the seller.

I would also make enforcement of penalties for use of a firearm in committing a crime mandatory. The reason they aren't enforced today is because they're used as a bargaining chip, traded away to make plea deal for a lesser sentence.

In order to enforce any confiscation of my means of self defense, you'd have to initiate force against me. This would be very much at odds with Objectivist philosophy

You can't sell it to me. Because once people in the government start restricting one type of gun, they will go farther and farther, and try to end up confiscating them all, including handguns. What I say is, "Give those btds an inch, and they'll take a yard."

The correct term is Armalite Rifle. I'm really pissed that the Fake Media and Leftist politicians designating this rifle platform as an Assault Rifle when it's no such thing. These crazies probably never held a rifle or fired one. They rather spread false info/propaganda to win the Sheeple over to their there POV.

It is not a compromise of the right of self-defense to recognize that delegation of responsibility for the retaliatory use of force to government includes the right to regulate and control arms that make protection by the police impossible. Delegation of the retaliatory use of force to government is a major step forward in protecting rights. Defining what such delegation requires is another step forward. Think of the whole host of powers we grant to law enforcement to make their protection of us more effective. Regulations on citizens owning weapons designed for battle is just one such step.

Magazine-fed semi-automatic or automatic fire rifles would have to taken under just compensation laws. But ending all sales, transporting, and sales of ammunition for them would be effective over time. Property that had been legal cannot be confiscated the next day without full compensation.

Owning magazine-fed semi-automatic and automatic fire ("military-style," for short) rifles sometimes are fiercely protected because of a classic slippery slope argument. If the left-liberals can take our military-style rifles, then can and will end up taking our knives and fists. That is true only if regulation of military-style is a compromise in the principles of the right to self-defense and bearing arms. If it were a compromise, then the principle would have been conceded and the slippery slone inevitable. But regulation of "military style" weapons is not a compromise of principle. It is inherent in the nature of delegating the retaliatory use of force to government, which must include setting conditions that make such protection of our rights effective. At this time, there is no effective way for police, however efficient and gallant, to protect against a blood bath when an individual uses a magazine-fed semi-automatic or automatic fire rifle.

The exception is the one specified in the Second Amendment: maintenance of a militia to defend freedom.

I guess Webster is as good a source as any. At any rate, it says precisely what I meant by "assault rifle":

assault rifle (noun): "...any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire, also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire...

For the point I was making: 1. magazine-fed, and 2. automatic or semiautomatic fire...

Given these two capabilities, a shooter can kill or wound so many people in so short a time, that no realistic police response--even at Dayton where six officers arrived 30 seconds after the first shot--can protect the public from a blood bath (nine dead in 30 seconds and 21 wounded.

This is a reality that makes it justifiable for law enforcement to say:
If weapons of this type are permitted, then the responsibility of the police, as implied under the delegation of retaliatory force to government, cannot in principle be met.

Therefore, a logical implication of the delegation of the retaliatory use of force are limitations on weapons of this kind. Having said this, Congress has stated one explicit exception: as part of an organized militia, with a mission and rules guiding intervention where law enforcement cannot--or will not (e.g., tyranny, dictatorship)--protect rights, citizens may bear the necessary arms, quite possibly including military-style weapons.

To summarize: The right to limit the type of weapons citizens can possess is legitimately included in the delegation of the retaliatory use of force to the police because carrying out that function, today, is inherently impossible when a magazine-fed, automatic or semi-automatic fire weapon is used. Too many people will be moved down no matter quickly police arrive. Furthermore, the right to self-defense under a delegation of authority for retaliatory use of force--self-defense until the police can arrive--does not logically require a magazine-fed automatic or semi-automatic fire weapon.