I'll dive in, if only because I tend to be one of the more vocal ones on this board when it comes to 2A.
Q1: This is a complicated question because it depends on who you ask. Strictly speaking, nobody lost their right to bear arms. Everyone can still go buy a gun (within the law). More people are affected by the outlawing of selling guns to felons than this specific ban, if you are going by the strict letter of the 2A. If you take a more broad approach though, the spirit of 2A was lessened by the restriction, if only because it created a divergence between the citizens and the government, in that the government can legally maintain more powerful weaponry than the citizens. Please don't take this statement to mean that I'm personally in favor of citizens owning tanks, missiles, nukes, whatever. Just stating that factually, part of the spirit of the 2A was to maintain an armed populace for self defense, as well as defense of the country against a government gone awry. Anything that curtails that in law, imho, lessens the 2A. Purely opinion/interpretation though.
Q2: Enforcing universal background checks 'technically' places the ability to deny gun ownership in the hands of the government, which is one of the facets that the 2A was designed to protect against. Again, it may not specifically deny 2A from the general populace, but it's an erosion of the right. Whether or not that erosion is acceptable to the people is for the people to decide. IMHO that shouldn't be left up to a single body, or really even representatives. I'd love to see a general populace vote on that one (and others).
Q3: Same as above, it doesn't strictly block 2A, but it erodes it, for the same reasons outlined in 1. If we are working on the assumption that it might be necessary to use these weapons one day to overthrow/defend oneself from an out of control government, any restriction in place technically limits that capability. This is only my interpretation, and doesn't reflect whether or not I personally think magazine sizes should be restricted.
Regarding each of the above, if left to me as a personal ruler of America, I'd probably not restrict 2A. There's other things I'd focus on if left personal ruler of America. If left to me to simply vote on the matter among my peers, I don't know which direction I'd vote on. It'd require me to carefully consider each proposal as they were written, as undoubtedly they'd be written like dogshit.
Final point, as I know it's going to come up. Just because the govt has access to tons of weaponry and troops that completely outclass anything available to the average citizen, that still doesn't mean that the 2A doesn't work. It's a multifaceted concept which is has a role in both deterrence and denial. Remember that throughout history, every country that has denied its citizenry the permission to own weaponry has eventually abused and/or killed its citizenry. Humanity doesn't change very quickly, and for all our hand-wringing over human rights and wokeness and all that shit, we're all about 5 missed meals from total anarchy. Current administration aside, the actions of the conservative party have proven that there's still Americans in power that have zero interest in maintaining the status quo, and would prefer us to slide backwards into an era of hatred, bigotry, and abuse. For that reason, I prefer to have a weapon, if only so that I have an option available when the time comes, rather than being caged into a course of action by an overwhelming force. I have extra fucks to give, so I've chosen to give fucks about this.
Facebook
Twitter