Honest and open debate on gun control

[2aguy]

Let's just face facts... libs really are retarded.

I've been a Democrat for many years, and let me tell you, it ain't easy these days. Difficult for me to justify my continued association with that party. When a viable alternative, middle of the road, third party emerges, I'll be happy to vote for them. As it is I won't be able to bring myself to vote for Hilary, she's why I voted for Obama in the first place. That's how terrible I think she is. If Jim Web is the Democrat candidate I'll vote for him. If Hilary is the candidate, then I'll vote for Jeb Bush. If Ted Cruz is the Republican candidate, then I don't know what I'll do.

I gave up on the pubs for the same reason. I'm libertarian now and I don't care if my votes are a waste.

In this election if you don't vote Republican you will be giving away your gun rights....hilary will get at least 2, maybe more Supreme Court justices who will be vetted for anti gun judicial activism. You won't just waste your vote this time, you will be giving it to a certified gun grabber. Remember, Heller and MacDonald were both decided with one vote...and the leftist judges do not respect precedent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

262 posts, no sound responses

 

[frigidweirdo]

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.

262 posts, no sound responses

No one even replied to my first post.

Post 149 Honest and open debate on gun control Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if you want to ignore people then say there's nothing good written, then you have a problem.

 

[Liminal]

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.

Face it. You don't want "an open and honest debate". Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable. You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation. Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you. Give us what you think are answers to your own OP. Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all. Sure, you can ban guns....but then what? Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash? Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war? I don't think it is.

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

 

[Nosmo King]

Face it. You don't want "an open and honest debate". Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable. You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation. Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you. Give us what you think are answers to your own OP. Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all. Sure, you can ban guns....but then what? Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash? Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war? I don't think it is.

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

 

[Liminal]

262 posts, no sound responses

But you can see why they'd be so enthusiastic about working on the Second Amendment. Just look at all the good work that's been done to the Forth Amendment.

 

[Liminal]

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all. Sure, you can ban guns....but then what? Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash? Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war? I don't think it is.

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

Never going to happen? What would prevent it.......McClellan?

 

[Nosmo King]

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.

Face it. You don't want "an open and honest debate". Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable. You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation. Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you. Give us what you think are answers to your own OP. Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Okay genius.....he murdered to get the gun.....and how would the background check, which he didn't go through stop him....and the shooter in Santa barbara, got three guns with 3 different background checks, no AR-15, and used 10 round magazines........

I notice you didn't explain the mechanics of any of your gun control laws that you support.....

Also...in Europe they have extreme gun control......all guns are inaccessible to law abiding citizens.....and 3 terrorists, 2 on government terrorist watch lists, 1 a convicted felon, easily got fully automatic rifles, with 30 round magazines, the same for the gang members in Marseille, France who used fully automatic rifles to shoot up a neighborhood just before the French Prime minister was supposed to speak about crime there....dittos, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium....all fully automatic rifles in Countries with gun control laws far more extreme than ours....

And they got fully automatic rifles easily....

So how do you propose that our gun laws would be any better? Please explain?

Grand fears of terrorism aside, consider the conveinence store clerk shot in a hold up or the drive by shooting on the MLK or the kids caught in crossfire or the kid who finds his Dad's gun and blows herself away.

The gun culture excuses or ignores the everyday crimes while telling the world that mass shootings are unavoidable and the world had better just get used to them because THEIR guns are too precious.

Selfishness coupled with willful ignorance is a dangerous condition.

 

[Nosmo King]

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all. Sure, you can ban guns....but then what? Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash? Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war? I don't think it is.

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

Never going to happen? What would prevent it.......McClellan?

No. Common sense and mature rational thought.

 

[Liminal]

Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all. Sure, you can ban guns....but then what? Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash? Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war? I don't think it is.

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

Never going to happen? What would prevent it.......McClellan?

No. Common sense and mature rational thought.

Your common sense doesn't seem to be adapting itself to a rapidly evolving and constantly changing world. You think like a conservative.

 

[Liminal]

It pays to remember that the last time this country experienced secession, it wasn't resolved through any legal or legislative means. And the Constitutional questions that led to the perception of a legitimate secession remain unchanged, and therefore unresolved in the minds of some people. If you don't think there's enough tinder there to start a fire then you're bound to get burned again, sooner or later.

 

[Ame®icano]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Nosmo King]

I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

Never going to happen? What would prevent it.......McClellan?

No. Common sense and mature rational thought.

Your common sense doesn't seem to be adapting itself to a rapidly evolving and constantly changing world. You think like a conservative.

Here up to this fork in the trail you took to talk secession, I thought we were getting along very well. Then you had to insult me in the cruelest possible words.

 

[MikeK]

Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.

If firearms were banned only the law-abiding would comply with the ban, thus making them vulnerable to armed criminals.

If firearms were banned only high-quality guns would be prohibitively expensive, mainly because they would be difficult for bootleggers to obtain from their reputable and honest manufacturers. But the ban would promptly give rise to the off-shore manufacture (China, Iran, Russia, et al) of marginal to inferior but perfectly functional knock-offs. And if you believe vigorous enforcement of the ban would eliminate or impede smuggling and black-market distribution, please consider alcohol Prohibition and the utterly ineffective "War On Drugs" which has been going on for decades with counterproductive results.

The simple fact of the matter is guns are endemic to the American culture and nothing short of the most severely repressive totalitarian methods can eliminate them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If firearms were banned only the law-abiding would comply with the ban

I do not think they would.

 

[Liminal]

I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession. 25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected. What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem? A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then? I think I can guess. You can call that hyperbole too.

Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall. Forget it. Where would a secession succeed? A trailer park secedes from a township? Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine. 1968 was a year that held more history than is fair. More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession. It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.

Never going to happen? What would prevent it.......McClellan?

No. Common sense and mature rational thought.

Your common sense doesn't seem to be adapting itself to a rapidly evolving and constantly changing world. You think like a conservative.

Here up to this fork in the trail you took to talk secession, I thought we were getting along very well. Then you had to insult me in the cruelest possible words.

You're right, that was harsh. But I think the world is changing so fast these days, and becoming so much more complicated, that I believe insurrection, secession, or whatever, could happen a lot faster than people realize. Look at how social media has been used to radically and quickly change political conditions in the middle east. The old rules and expectations don't seem to apply any more.

 

[westwall]

I do. I bo

Especially if the scores of millions of existing weapons are not confiscated.
Never mind the question as to how such a thing does not violate the constitution.

I have guns that are over a hundred years old in perfect working condition. Those guns will be shooting a hundred years from now.

I have semi-automatic guns that are over 100 years old

Really! Don't tell me you have a Mondragon.

I do. I bought mine 30 years ago.

Really? That is impressive. You must be a serious collector, if it's in good condition it must be worth at least $10,000. I saw a Mondragon once at the big Reno gun show about ten years ago.
Correction, it has to be worth at least $25,000 and possibly as much as 40,000.

I paid around 5 grand for it when I first bought it. Nowadays it's worth upwards of 45k. Fifty K on a good day. What's funny is I bought it at the Shotgun News gun show at the MGM Grand which grew up to be the Big Reno Gun Show.

 

[2aguy]

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.

Face it. You don't want "an open and honest debate". Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable. You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation. Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you. Give us what you think are answers to your own OP. Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Okay genius.....he murdered to get the gun.....and how would the background check, which he didn't go through stop him....and the shooter in Santa barbara, got three guns with 3 different background checks, no AR-15, and used 10 round magazines........

I notice you didn't explain the mechanics of any of your gun control laws that you support.....

Also...in Europe they have extreme gun control......all guns are inaccessible to law abiding citizens.....and 3 terrorists, 2 on government terrorist watch lists, 1 a convicted felon, easily got fully automatic rifles, with 30 round magazines, the same for the gang members in Marseille, France who used fully automatic rifles to shoot up a neighborhood just before the French Prime minister was supposed to speak about crime there....dittos, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium....all fully automatic rifles in Countries with gun control laws far more extreme than ours....

And they got fully automatic rifles easily....

So how do you propose that our gun laws would be any better? Please explain?

Grand fears of terrorism aside, consider the conveinence store clerk shot in a hold up or the drive by shooting on the MLK or the kids caught in crossfire or the kid who finds his Dad's gun and blows herself away.

The gun culture excuses or ignores the everyday crimes while telling the world that mass shootings are unavoidable and the world had better just get used to them because THEIR guns are too precious.

Selfishness coupled with willful ignorance is a dangerous condition.

No...you are wrong....we know about those shootings...we also know that armed people stop those very crimes every single day.....read the stories study the research....women with guns stop rapes, clerks with guns stop robberies

And kids dying from gun accidents...less than 100 a year in a country of over 320 million people with 90 million homes with guns in them......it is amazing that there are actually so few gun accidents and it shows normal Americans are amazingly concientious about gun safety......

And again, you did not explain how gun background checks, registering legally owned guns, magazine limits, or universal background checks stop any of those shootings..........

Every day violent crimes are stopped by normal people, often with little to no training with guns, simply because they have a gun to even the odds against stronger more violent or more numerous attackers.

 

[2aguy]

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Not anymore......it depends on what the one vote majority on the Supreme Court decides.....no matter what the law actually says....