Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.
You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.
Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.
All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.
Hellooooo, anyone home?
Any regulation that doesn't infringe your rights is constitutional.
You need license for any business, not just to manufacture guns. You can't even run lemonade stand without it anymore.
Putting serial number on a gun doesn't infringe individual right to keep and bear arms.
You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.
I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.
What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?
If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.
No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.
Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.