Broadly - punishment is some kind of sanction or penalty as a consequence of some other action. For example, two people A and B both legally possess a slide fire bump stock. A commits crimes using it, and B does not. It would be appropriate to punish A for their actions. It would not be appropriate to punish B for the actions of A. The question of whether the slide fire stock should be legal is independent of the actions of A. This gets magnified if there is a group of people that are represented by B, and a single person that is A.
It is no punishment to restrict the ability of people to have nukes, because people never had that in the first place. The question of whether to limit nukes can be addressed on its own merits.
I’m not sure how private militarized security is relevant. I’m going to ignore it otherwise.
Given that confiscation (not for all) has happened, I think the idea of it is much more realistic. But really, the number of people advocating for private nukes is virtually zero. The number of people advocating for outright bans on guns and/or confiscation is much larger.
There is a large difference between what I think should be legal, what the law says should be legal, and what is actually legal. I personally do not agree with the laws against machine guns and if I wore a black robe for a living and had 4 other co-workers who agreed with me, I’d overturn the NFA. Barring that, I’d like Congress to do so. I do not think that is ever going to happen. But hey, Ruth and Kennedy could retire and then things would get interesting.
If machine guns were legal in my state, I would buy one. But if you want to talk about what the law is, then the criteria for what is available to restrict are those weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, and not in common use. It’s circular for sure, but that’s what the law is. AR-15 pattern semi-auto rifles are the most common rifle in the US. There are 10s of millions of them.
Referring to using police and soldiers as a metric, but mostly focused on magazine size, I said this:
You didn’t participate in this thread, however it’s more fleshed out in the posts before and after. I would add that the one of the core purposes of the second amendment is self defense. I think there is an argument to be made that standard kits may include things that are offensive in nature, and for those I think they have less basis of support. This also is focused on arms, not ordinance.
You can make your own determination.
It is not hypocrisy to prioritize which causes to support. I am essentially a single issue voter, though I use it as a disqualifier more than anything.