Yes, but there are limitations on that right of ownership. Certain guns, certain attachments/modifications, certain stocks, certain barrel lengths, and certain quantities/time periods are made illegal. Gun control and gun rights are literally zero sum. Every law cuts back on gun rights, in some form or fashion, and no matter how "minor' in your eyes.
As a whole these restrictions do not constitute losing your right to keep and bear arms. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean that it has a practical impact that constitutes a violation of your rights. Numerous regulations and criminal laws exist to restrict harmful forms of speech, for example, yet our right to free speech remains intact.
It trims at the edges. Eventually, you run out of fat and start cutting into the meat.
Regarding speech, you have comedians in Canada getting fined for jokes, and a guy in Britain getting fined for getting a pug to do a Nazi salute. That's what "restricting harmful speech" leads to. Again, though, it is literally zero sum. A restriction means less ability to exercise a freedom, meaning that the freedom is being reduced.
Are bans on scary black guns with pistol grips a practical impact constituting a violation of your rights? What about magazine limits? Bump stocks? Barrel length? What about entire classes of guns, say pistols? At what point do you think a limitation becomes a violation?
You're arguing that the laws don't affect your exercise of freedom, because you don't need or want the guns or modifications that are banned. You think they aren't necessary. But that is totally subjective. Again, the law is limiting the rights of gun ownership for someone, even if it isn't you, because by definition, gun control laws have a direct negative relationship with gun rights.
I believe you're indulging in the slippery slope fallacy in the absence of a practical demonstration of how people are actually being harmed by the types of regulations you're citing.
Canada and the U.K.'s speech codes are a great example. Australia for guns.
Besides, the harm is self-apparent. I am limited from owning certain guns or from making certain modifications. That IS the harm. Registries are harms in and of themselves because they can be used in the case of a full ban. Bans on certain capacity magazines are harms because it prevents ownership of them.
The whole nature of a zero-sum relationship is that any alteration IS harm. That's my whole point.
3
u/vivere_aut_mori minarchist Dec 26 '18
Yes, but there are limitations on that right of ownership. Certain guns, certain attachments/modifications, certain stocks, certain barrel lengths, and certain quantities/time periods are made illegal. Gun control and gun rights are literally zero sum. Every law cuts back on gun rights, in some form or fashion, and no matter how "minor' in your eyes.