Gun Control Compromise

[JoeB131]

Guns are not responsible for suicides. If they were, the United States would be at the top of the list for suicides.

What is this bizarre thing that when Conservatives want to avoid how messed up something is, they need to compare us to some poor miserable country.

"Look everyone, we have less suicide than Belarus, an impoverished dictatorship!"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, I'd like to amend the constitution so the Militia Amendment isn't misinterpreted into 'Every Nut has a right to an Assault Rifle and a 100 Round Magazine because that would be stupid."

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

If you don't like the FACT (don't keep denying the clear truth) that the CURRENT state of the constitution prohibits ANY government action to limit the individual right to own anything that can be characterized as an "arm" your remedy is AMENDMENT.

I fucking HATE the fact that the 14th Amendment is so clumsily written that it guarantees citizenship to anchor babies. I am quite confident that the draftsmen did not intend such a result. Too fucking bad for me. The plain language of the amendment is clear.

What's my remedy?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, the language is pretty ambigious...
Well Regulated Militia has been interpreted through most of our history as meaning the kinds and amounts of guns could be (and should be) regulated.

Wrong. Nobody interpreted it that way. That interpretation was raised for the first time in Heller or the case preceding it. That bullshit argument is the new kid on the block.

By your logic, people should be able to own nukes, anthrax and howitzers.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. You don't like the consequences of the unambiguous language, just like I don't like the consequences of the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment.

We each have the same legal remedy. Amend.

 

[Crepitus]

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.

Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

"Gosh, you noticed me! That means I'm WINNING!"

No, hon. You got the exact same respect you always get from me. I can see why you'd feel the need to view disdain as a victory, though, being such a common incident in your life.

Most of us, though, try to actually BE right instead of just trying to claim to be.

Meanwhile, all your failed attempts to be clever aside, you're still an enemy of the Constitution and national sovereignty and still undeserving in every way of being "compromised with", because you still have zero right to demand we give in on anything.

Lol, call down kiddo.

 

[Crepitus]

Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.

Lol, piss you off a bit did I?

You know why?

It's because you know I'm right.

thats not what that means

View attachment 240351

you know that better than me

Decrepitus reminds me strongly of creepy stalkers who take it as a sign of their "strong relationship" with the target when she files a restraining order, because "she noticed me!"

Keep tryin' kid, you'll get there one of these days.

 

[JoeB131]

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

Well, no, it is the militia amendment. Only the wealthy could afford guns in the 18th century... they were kind of a luxury item. The Founding Slave rapists didn't want the peasants having them.

Wrong. Nobody interpreted it that way. That interpretation was raised for the first time in Heller or the case preceding it. That bullshit argument is the new kid on the block.

You need to look up US v. Miller... that's when they established pretty clearly that the Second was about militias and the government could regulate whether or not Al Capone could have a Tommy Gun or not.

{{meta.pageTitle}}

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

 

[iceberg]

Guns are not responsible for suicides. If they were, the United States would be at the top of the list for suicides.

What is this bizarre thing that when Conservatives want to avoid how messed up something is, they need to compare us to some poor miserable country.

"Look everyone, we have less suicide than Belarus, an impoverished dictatorship!"

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

 

[iceberg]

Well, I'd like to amend the constitution so the Militia Amendment isn't misinterpreted into 'Every Nut has a right to an Assault Rifle and a 100 Round Magazine because that would be stupid."

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

If you don't like the FACT (don't keep denying the clear truth) that the CURRENT state of the constitution prohibits ANY government action to limit the individual right to own anything that can be characterized as an "arm" your remedy is AMENDMENT.

I fucking HATE the fact that the 14th Amendment is so clumsily written that it guarantees citizenship to anchor babies. I am quite confident that the draftsmen did not intend such a result. Too fucking bad for me. The plain language of the amendment is clear.

What's my remedy?

.

thry didnt. its fully documented they didnt and people just go NUH UH!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

And yet here we are WITHOUT the ability to own a full-auto military rifle such as an M-4, which WOULD have an UNQUESTIONABLY reasonable relationship to the preservation or effeciency of a wll-regulated militia, because here we have the Hughes Amendment.

So, is the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional?

That case is not only a poor ruling, ignoring the clear "shall not be infringed" language, but it is NOT on point with your argument that we have no individual right distinct from active participation in an organized militia.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guns are not responsible for suicides. If they were, the United States would be at the top of the list for suicides.

What is this bizarre thing that when Conservatives want to avoid how messed up something is, they need to compare us to some poor miserable country.

"Look everyone, we have less suicide than Belarus, an impoverished dictatorship!"

Merely to point out that when people want to kill themselves, they don't have to be using a gun. Therefore it's ridiculous to say the reason we have suicides is because we have guns. Guns have nothing to do with suicides. Its a choice of suicide, yes. But that doesn't mean if a gun isn't around it will prevent any suicides.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, the language is pretty ambigious...
Well Regulated Militia has been interpreted through most of our history as meaning the kinds and amounts of guns could be (and should be) regulated.

By your logic, people should be able to own nukes, anthrax and howitzers.

No, it says the militia should be well regulated--not guns.

Well, I'd like to amend the constitution so the Militia Amendment isn't misinterpreted into 'Every Nut has a right to an Assault Rifle and a 100 Round Magazine because that would be stupid."

Failing that, we should pass more laws, and kill the NRA off through bleeding it dry.

What does the NRA have to do with it?

 

[2aguy]

This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.

You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.

There will be no compromise.

I agree. You nuts will eventually force us to confescate all your guns because you aren't capable of even the most sensible laws. The NRA long ago learned the gun nut was the best customer, regardless of how irresponsible selling to him was.

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%....so you don't make any sense....our gun crime rates are going down, not up, you doofus.....which means Americans are more responsible with their guns, not less.....

 

[2aguy]

Guns are not responsible for suicides. If they were, the United States would be at the top of the list for suicides.

What is this bizarre thing that when Conservatives want to avoid how messed up something is, they need to compare us to some poor miserable country.

"Look everyone, we have less suicide than Belarus, an impoverished dictatorship!"

No...moron...how about France, you doofus....or Japan....you moron....

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

 

[2aguy]

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

Well, no, it is the militia amendment. Only the wealthy could afford guns in the 18th century... they were kind of a luxury item. The Founding Slave rapists didn't want the peasants having them.

Wrong. Nobody interpreted it that way. That interpretation was raised for the first time in Heller or the case preceding it. That bullshit argument is the new kid on the block.

You need to look up US v. Miller... that's when they established pretty clearly that the Second was about militias and the government could regulate whether or not Al Capone could have a Tommy Gun or not.

{{meta.pageTitle}}

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

No, moron, you need to look up and actually read Miller.....where the opinion stated that weapons that would be used in a "Milita" would be protected, you doofus.... so that Tommy gun, a military weapon would have been protected....you moron...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia


The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition about the decision, Justice McReynolds wrote:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[6]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

See, that's where you are losing many people. It's not the "militia" amendment. The operative clause (the one that actually does something) is clear that the individual right is not to be infringed. The infringe part is not ambiguous.

Well, no, it is the militia amendment. Only the wealthy could afford guns in the 18th century... they were kind of a luxury item. The Founding Slave rapists didn't want the peasants having them.

Wrong. Nobody interpreted it that way. That interpretation was raised for the first time in Heller or the case preceding it. That bullshit argument is the new kid on the block.

You need to look up US v. Miller... that's when they established pretty clearly that the Second was about militias and the government could regulate whether or not Al Capone could have a Tommy Gun or not.

{{meta.pageTitle}}

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

No, moron, you need to look up and actually read Miller.....where the opinion stated that weapons that would be used in a "Milita" would be protected, you doofus.... so that Tommy gun, a military weapon would have been protected....you moron...

{{meta.pageTitle}}

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia


The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition about the decision, Justice McReynolds wrote:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[6]

They love Miller, but thumb their noses when we call the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional.

I have little remaining patience with these fools.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.

True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.

You can understand how such wordplay and attempted trickery or pettifogging causes a much greater divide and distrust. Those making such arguments are not helping their cause. They are making themselves look like win-at-all-cost, ban and confiscate advocates and we all believe them to be such.

.

The same can be said for the other side as well. Don't give an inch even if it means making life dicey. I promote common sense Gun Regs where you keep your guns until you prove that you are a public nuicance or are capable of become one very easily. Such as, like that idiot at the range you showed. Or mentally unable to be rational with firearms. Common sense limits really don't take away the joys of shooting. Here are some points.

Remember, these are Grandfathered In. And yes, you can internet order any and all of these but you can't go into a Gun Shop and buy them anymore in state. Many were saying the End was Near over any and all of these. Guess what, the sun came up anyway.

1. Do I really need more than 20 rounds in a Mag? The Mags I used in the Military were 20 round mags. I don't know who came up with the 30 but in a combat situation, that 30 round just seems to hang up on too many things. And if you have to move and duck and dive, chances are you are going to render the mag useless when you damage it. The Wives tail that the combat troops used to tape two mags together is just that. I think an AR looks rather strange with a 30 round mag. If it were being pushed as a "Sporting Rifle" no more than 5 would be a waste. But the AR/M-16/4 was designed to take the 20 round mags from the first day it hit combat in 1959. In Colorado, we have a 15 round limit. That isn't something that is a deal breaker since it doesn't really take away the function of the AR if you are either using it for Sport or home defense. If you need more than that you are probably very near to dying anyway.

2. The Rails for things like the M203 and Silencer threading and other Combat Addons. In Colorado, these have to be left off on new guns and new builds.

3. We don't quite have Universal Background Checks but look for that to happen sometime this year. Right now, any sale or transfer of firearms must be accompanied with a background check even private ones. Colorado placed a 7 buck limit on it. It takes only a few minutes of time of the FFL dealer to run it so no big deal. I checked into 2016 and found that there were 127 convicted felons lied on their background checks. These were violent people that tried to rearm. It stopped them cold and put them back behind bars. The other couple of hundred thousand were able to purchase, or transfer their guns right on the spot. Tell me again that background checks don't work. That's 127 violent criminals taken off the street in one year alone. Is it enforceable? Only if they find that people are ignoring it and abusing it which has not been the case. Americans are primarily lawful. And sooner or later, the Criminal will trip up because we all know just how brilliant they are.

4. It was okayed for Teachers to be armed. But they left it up to the Teachers to make that determination. It was shot down 100% by the Teachers who refuse to go armed in the Schools but elect to have beefed up security instead. And we already know that beefed up security works. We've had two mass school shootings but since those changes were made, we have had arrests and lockdowns but no mass school shootings.

5. Open Carry and CCW. it's legal to Open Carry unless the area is off limits to OC. No license, no training, any person may OC. I have a problem with that. Luckily, the FAD has pretty well run it's course. The Local Sheriffs pretty well determine how the CCW has to be done. Most Sheriffs have you come in, fill out a form, run a standard background check you, make sure that you have fulfilled the proper requirements and on that very day, usually in the same hour, you receive your CCW. They don't even have to ask why you want it. It's suffices that you just want it. While the OC has been problematic, the CCW has only a couple of incidents in the last 10 years or so. CCW people will think before they do because the biggest part of qualifying for that CCW is to learn the law and the repercussions. And those repercussions should scare the hell out of you.

6. I live in the Reddest part of the State. At one time, people were playing the Fear Card and open carry and ARs were flying off the shelf. In the last year or so, the OC has all but disappeared and in the gun shops, the
ARs are on sale and gathering dust. The AR market saturated already. The conventional Hunting Rifles have made a remarkable comeback including the Mini-14. What I saw was something bordering on a Cult. But the Cult has run it's course. Fewer and Fewer people are buying into the Fear Card each day. And the Sun still comes up and life still goes on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.

True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.

You can understand how such wordplay and attempted trickery or pettifogging causes a much greater divide and distrust. Those making such arguments are not helping their cause. They are making themselves look like win-at-all-cost, ban and confiscate advocates and we all believe them to be such.

.

Seems Scalia used "wordplay and attempted Trickery or pettifogging" in his long and tedious remarks in Heller.

What came out of Heller V is pretty simple when you sift through all that BS. DC was out of line on two things.

1. Requiring that all Handguns had to have trigger locks on them or be disassemble or disabled to have them n the home. That was overruled. Heller V specifically dealt with Handguns only and not any other class of weapons.

2. Making it almost impossible to get a License to possess a handgun for your home. This was changed so that DC had to rewrite it's requirements where it may be difficult but not impossible. Heller met the requirements to get the license/permit.

Most of the Heller V DC ruling was just a bunch of Judges spouting off trying to make themselves sound smarter. One and two are what it really means. All the rest isn't worth the paper it was drooled on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What came out of Heller V is pretty simple when you sift through all that BS. DC was out of line on two things.

1. Requiring that all Handguns had to have trigger locks on them or be disassemble or disabled to have them n the home. That was overruled. Heller V specifically dealt with Handguns only and not any other class of weapons.

2. Making it almost impossible to get a License to possess a handgun for your home. This was changed so that DC had to rewrite it's requirements where it may be difficult but not impossible. Heller met the requirements to get the license/permit.

Most of the Heller V DC ruling was just a bunch of Judges spouting off trying to make themselves sound smarter. One and two are what it really means. All the rest isn't worth the paper it was drooled on.

I would add that Heller did shut down the ridiculous argument that the right is collective, rather than individual.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Careful now, you are expressing views like my own. If it ever gets out, you are going to have to turn in your secrit gunnutter decoder ring.

I am glad we have found common ground. Responsible gun owners take gun safety VERY seriously to the point of pure OCD behavior.

Gun ownership is a great and solemn responsibility that NO ONE should take lightly.

My local gun range is HYPER anal about gun safety issue and will immediately ban anyone who acts in any way that is unsafe, without a warning, permanently. You get no second chances with these guys.

Video: Man Points Gun at Himself, Friend's Head for Shooting Range Selfies



Guns are not toys.

I got a lot of flack when I stated that the only time I would pull a gun outside of a range would be if I were going to shoot it. Not threaten with it. Otherwise, it stays put. The Rexall Rangers all believe that in a situation that requires a gun that you will have the wherwithall to make the decision to not shoot. If you aren't ready and willing to shoot, don't pull the damned thing in the first place. You are right, guns are not toys. Like I said, I will hesitate longer than a cop before I pull that t weapon. I will also determine if it's just a robbery that no one will probably die or not. If it's about a pocket full of money or a cash register full of money, it's not worth the risk. Let the Cops deal with it later. If it comes down to a shooting match, others may get hurt or killed in the process. Any employee that would work for me that wouldn't just hand the money over quickly would be unemployed even if they were successful thwarting the robbery since the customers could have been harmed in the process. Me, pulling my weapon and announcing it verbally, might cause the bad guy that already has his weapon drawn and trained on another person to go ahead and start shooting. Unless I feel that the perp is actually going to use that weapon, he gets the money and gets to leave. Let the cops sort it out.

That's true, but it doesn't always work out that way. I have a gas station near my home where the guy working it was gunned down. The robber pulled a gun, leaned over the counter and started taking money out of the drawer. The attendant just backed off with his hands up and let him take what he wanted. The robber got fifty bucks. He then shot the young clerk dead for no reason.

People who knew him said he was a great guy; an immigrant from the middle-east. They said if the guy just asked for money, the clerk was the kind of person that would have given him what he needed out of his own pocket.

Then the Money wasn't they guys intention from very beginning. What you bring up is a cold blooded killer. The money was secondary. It probably wouldn't have mattered if the clerk had a gun or not or a bystander was armed. It wasn't robbery, it was cold blooded murder. Most thieves won't fire that weapon and just take the money. Most Cold Blooded Killers will only take the money because it's there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Unorganized Militia is a made up term. It's a bunch of red necks wearing pickle suits running around the woods brandishing weapons with a would be King for a leader. No Governor in their right mind would want these people representing the state in anything other than a "What Not to Do" film.

True. And, in the context of this discussion, the "organized" verse "unorganized" militia is irrelevant. The whole discussion of a militia is irrelevant. The attempt to make it relevant is dishonest and causes people on my side to be suspicious and unwilling to give a single inch or compromise.

You can understand how such wordplay and attempted trickery or pettifogging causes a much greater divide and distrust. Those making such arguments are not helping their cause. They are making themselves look like win-at-all-cost, ban and confiscate advocates and we all believe them to be such.

.

Seems Scalia used "wordplay and attempted Trickery or pettifogging" in his long and tedious remarks in Heller.

What came out of Heller V is pretty simple when you sift through all that BS. DC was out of line on two things.

1. Requiring that all Handguns had to have trigger locks on them or be disassemble or disabled to have them n the home. That was overruled. Heller V specifically dealt with Handguns only and not any other class of weapons.

2. Making it almost impossible to get a License to possess a handgun for your home. This was changed so that DC had to rewrite it's requirements where it may be difficult but not impossible. Heller met the requirements to get the license/permit.

Most of the Heller V DC ruling was just a bunch of Judges spouting off trying to make themselves sound smarter. One and two are what it really means. All the rest isn't worth the paper it was drooled on.

One sentence of substance written by Scalia blows away the shall not be infringed phrase in the 2nd A.