Nah your thread is dumb and I'll explain why (Your cited SCOTUS cases are irrelevant btw. Your claim is that gun control is "crip walking on the Constitution," so let's stick to the intent of the framers as opposed to some Supreme Court judges opinion on it, lest you want to defend blind super PACs because of the Citizens United ruling).
1. Your initial premise of accusing liberals of hypocrisy for opposing The Patriot Act and FISA and being pro-gun control is non-sequitur. Many do not see calling for regulations and restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles an infringement on liberty, and it certainly does not compare in magnitude or scale to warrantless wiretapping, which is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment because there's no probable cause for roaming warrantless wiretaps. They didn't even try to fight it in court, they just urged lawmakers not to prosecute because there isn't even a question of the constitutionality of it.
Even if we do go with your claim that regulating assault rifles is an infringement on liberty, well, every right granted in the Constitution is limited in some respect. I'll go to the famous "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" example. So obviously people who are against FISA and the Patriot Act and for gun control just have a different threshold and interpretation of what liberties they think should be limited and to what degree. That doesn't make them hypocrites.
You might want to watch who you point the finger at for hypocrisy because many would argue that social security and other social welfare programs you support are not constitutional unless you stretch the fukk out of the general welfare clause in article I. You can't pick and choose what you want to be strict constitutional interpreter about then call people hypocrites if they see things another way.
2. It's silly to say you know that the framers intended the 2nd amendment to not restrict any types of firearms whatsoever, even semi-automatic assault rifles, when it was written at the time when the most advanced firearm was the flintlock rifle. I will remind you that the Constitution was meant to be a living document, of course.
Look at the 2nd amendent.
It's easy to see why the framers would want to give robust rights to arms to people when they led a revolution themselves against a colonial power and were fighting against the American Indians whose land they stole. And they wanted to reassure anti-federalists that militias would've be disarmed. The 2nd amendment was more about granting rights to form a militia to combat Indians or tyrannical government and appeasing those with militia leanings than it was about personal protection and this is common knowledge.
But that's neither here nor there, really. Again, it says the people should have the right to bear arms and it will not be infringed. But the line has to be drawn somewhere unless you think people should be able to own their personal nuclear missile silos.
Where do you draw the line? You can carry a semi-automatic assault rifle, but not a fully automatic machine gun? What about silencers? What about extended clips? Can I pack a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? What about hand grenades? Can I put land mines in my yard? What about a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher and stinger missiles? Can I drive a tank? A gunboat? White phosphorous?
There were no semi-automatic assault rifles and extended clips that hold 50 rounds in 1787. The framers couldn't even fathom that, just like we can't fathom the weapons of the future.
I'll try. Let's say in the future, we can use our mobile devices to call in small aerial drones that fire hails of projectiles that we could call in like missile strikes to cut people down while we're in our homes. Should that be legal? Hey, if you ban them, according to your logic, that's a violation of the 2nd amendment.
So everyone draws the line somewhere. I might draw the line at semi-automatic assault rifles. You might draw the line at fully automatic machine guns...or RPGs, I don't know.
3. You kinda discredited yourself a bit by how you framed it in the beginning. Not only the bogus hypocrisy charge, but you called regulations and restrictions on military-style firearms for private citizens "cripwalking on the Constitution," instead of just stating you think it places unfair limits on the 2nd amendment, which is the type of hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric one would expect to hear from Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, and makes it hard to take you serious as someone operating from cold logic as you're posturing to be.
