...How does that simple philosophy translate into gun laws?
Looks like you are still here
Billy000 and you still have an enquiring mind. But I can tell if you just like to argue or if you want someone to explain to you philosophically why people today should be allowed to keep guns in their homes and carry them on their person in public?
The answers to all these questions are contained within a very long U.S. Supreme Court decision linked below:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
However if you are not a good reader and/or you do not have any basic legal skills it won't make much sense to you.
In a nutshell, the late Justice Scalia explains that the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to own acceptable firearms in their homes for home protection. He then leaves to the various States the power to determine whether or not these people may have the additional right to bear their arms in public either openly or concealed or not at all. He also defines acceptable guns as those which have militia application. He disqualifies sawed off shotguns as unfit for militia duty and therefore calls them "destructive devices" not subject to private ownership.
This is the answer to all of your questions. But I am sure you probably won't get it.
In a nutshell, anything that is more like a "destructive device" is not appropriate for civilian ownership. Ergo, sawed off shotguns, rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenade launchers, hand grenades -- these items are all destructive devices.
Don't argue with me (or anyone else) about assault weapons. That is simply a legislative matter, same as submachine guns, belt fed machine guns, fully auto firearms, etc.
