I'm having a problem with the logical connecting of dots that results in this statement "Suppressors are “firearms” within the context of the Second Amendment"
I'm against regulating suppressors. Not because of 2a, like I said, I don't see the connection unless you're going to call everything that could potentially be attached to a gun a firearm, and we don't do that. Nor should we. I can see including anything that is necessary to the function of the gun, mags, bullets, etc., but not suppressors, any more than I see muzzle breaks or flash suppressors as falling under 2a.
Generally speaking I don't think the gov should be regulation anything without significant and quantifiable reason. They regulate DUI because some people do it and cause serious problems for others. If there was never an idiot who drove drunk, which at one point there wasn't we wouldn't have DUI laws. I've never heard of a RUI (Riding, as in horses) law, because even if it was done it wasn't likely to to harm anyone other than the rider. After all the drunk might fall off and break their neck, but the horse isn't going to crash into a school and kill a half dozen students. Even with this I have issues with how they regulate DUI, but I can see how it got there. And of course DUI is an action not a thing.
So maybe it's best to say, I can see how they get to regulating (laws or regulation, let's not get too caught up on the word) actions, murder, assault, theft, but things are just things until a person does something.
Of course that leaves us with how do you fight an unjust restriction? There is no amendment that says the gov will not restrict things, but can restrict the use, but not mere possession, of things, provided that use can be shown to be of significant danger to the public or person, and show that such a restriction will not violate the rights guaranteed to all people.
Now there might be some past ruling that connects these, but the existence of something like that still only pushes the question back, it doesn't give me the step by step connection to 2a.
I write this in hope of some real conversation. If you're one of those that just screams 2A 2A 2A, well... go ahead, it's your right. But it doesn't help make good conversation and frankly just makes that person look, well, not so smart.
I'm pretty sure, at least in some areas, there is a OWI statute that relates to livestock as well. (Operator intoxicated, not the livestock. Hard to lock up a horse in people-jail.)
Sure you might not hit a bus and kill kids. But you wander Old Blue out into the highway, the bus veers to avoid and kills all the kids anyhow.