re: #30 EPR-radar

The answer pretty much has to be ‘never’, if civil rights and legal rights are taken to be the same.

However, there is value in making this distinction so that legal rights refer to the rights that are actually in place under a specific legal system, and civil rights are more idealistic and can differ from real laws. Such differences, once perceived, are often drivers for reform. For example, I think there is a short list of essential civil rights that legal systems should aspire to grant in practice.

For me, RKBA is not on this short list of essential civil rights.

I realize that this may sound like a good case of ‘I don’t care about other people rights’.

But realistically, suppose Canada had a carbon copy of the US constitution, except for a missing 2nd amendment, and had instituted a AU or UK type gun ban. How seriously would anyone in the US take claims of oppression by people in Canada who wanted to own and use guns?