I contend that the NFA (and the GCA 1968) is a preposterous violation of individual liberty that is protected by the constitution. Maybe, maybe, someone wants to argue about where "the line" "should" be drawn... but it sure as hell can't be justified at "suppressors". And I'd argue it can't be drawn at "automatic", nor the length or a barrel nor overall length either. Absurd. "Intolerable Acts".

You know there are more kinds of laws than just the ones that protect people from physical harm.  You're arguing for anarchy -- no regulations unless lack of one physically harms someone.

I kinda hate to say this, but... strawman. I never used the term "anarchy", nor did I espouse anything remotely resembling anarchy. Here, I'll provide you with a dictionary definition:

Definition of anarchy
1a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
the city's descent into anarchy
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
anarchy prevailed in the ghetto
b : absence of order : DISORDER
not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature

I don't know if your misrepresentation was intentional or if you don't know the definition of the word, but it's certainly not an argument against what I wrote. Repealing and/or minimizing victimless crimes laws is not anarchy by the wildest stretch of anyone's imagination.

If you take one example, vehicle safety checks, you could argue it's just a money grab.  But, the state doesn't make money from it. It reimburses the safety check station operators for their cost -- not much profit on a $20-ish expense.

What the regulations do is try to ensure people take responsibility for their car's maintenance, thus increasing safety for everyone on the road.  Fewer blown tires at highway speeds, fewer operators driving at night with non-working lights, fewer people caught in the rain with wipers that don't clean the window .... all valid concerns for every driver if safety is the issue.

Good example. There is no evidence that mandated safety checks decrease the rates of vehicle accidents. No one is served by the law for the claimed intended reason for the law... just like the NFA, and the "assault pistol ban", suppressor ban, registration, etc., etc. etc. garbage crap we have here in Hawaii for which there is zero evidence have any effect in any way on "public safety", which is the claimed justification.

Here's another example along the same line: In the other 49 states the posted highway speed limit is AT LEAST 65 MPH, if not higher, and there is no evidence that Hawaii's 55 MPH limit results in fewer or less severe rates of vehicle accidents and injuries. Nor does it save any even slight amount of fossil fuel nor carbon emissions, especially considering, at least where I am, everyone drives 65 on the highway anyway unless a cop car is present, in which case they give tickets to the people doing what everyone else is doing all the time for which there is no evidence of greater harm.

You can keep going deeper into the anarchist rabbit hole if you want.  I posted my opinion.  It's tough he got caught, but if we're going to preach about "legal consequences", we have to be consistent.

There you go again. Too bad you appear to have no concept of an unjust law. You simply argue for "consistency". Is that what you were saying about Martin Luther King when black people (anarchists according to you) objected to the laws which deprived them of equal rights? When women sought the vote? When the American colonists declared their refusal to obey the Intolerable Acts? I suppose if you had been in charge we'd still be subjects of the King. Yes, I believe there are unjust laws, and those laws not only should not exist, but that people have a duty to at least call them out if not outrightly disobey them. And certainly a "crime" that has no victim is an unjust law. I believe that any citizen serving on a jury where someone is being prosecuted under such a law has a civic and moral obligation to nullify such a law via a "not guilty" verdict. Judges "should" do the same thing, and very occasionally do, but too rarely.

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

“That which is not just is not law.” William Lloyd Garrison

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

That's the same level of stupid as "Just say NO!" So are you saying you never violate any law, such as driving even one mile per hour over the speed limit, or only that when you knowingly or unknowingly violate a law that you are willing to do the time? So if next session the legislature passes a ban on semi-automatic rifles having certain cosmetic features you will turn yours in, to be "consistent"?

BTW, the defendant pleaded "Guilty", so there really wasn't anything for the judge or jury to decide beyond sentencing.

I'm sure that plea was arrived at after lengthy discussions between the prosecutors and the defendant's attorney, and we all know how that works. Many innocent people, and in this case someone guilty of a victimless crime, are threatened with extreme charges and/or sentences if they do not "cooperate" and plead to lesser, or fewer, charges with congruently lesser penalties than what the prosecutor's could charge them with. Yeah, I know "that's how the system works...". The fact that he plead guilty means nothing relative to the concept of "justice" regarding the "crime" he committed.

[Many words snipped]

You sure are spending a lot of time writing to argue about something you know is purely academic.

If a law exists, and you break the law FOR ANY REASON, including your opinion the law is stupid, unjust, etc., you must be prepared to also accept the consequences like an adult.

Yes, if I get ticketed for 1 mile an hour over the speed limit, and I know I was speeding, I'd accept the ticket.  If I feel the ticket was bogus or inappropriate (others were speeding by at >10+ MPH over the limit without being stopped), I might also show up in court so the judge can throw it out, as it's impossible for any speed detector to have a zero margin of error -- too many variables.

I know what anarchy is.  Taken to the extreme, it's lack of any government. In the common use, it's trusting people to behave without the need for laws and regulations.

ANARCHISM: 
"a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable
 and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and
groups"

The bad news is an otherwise completely law-abiding 70-year old who hasn't harmed anyone in any way is going to jail for 7 years for buying an M14 in the 1980s.