Want gun control? Fight smart.

[Old Rocks]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

 

[hunarcy]

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

 

[Old Rocks]

There are different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not going to get into it with you. However, I certainly don't think that EVERYONE believes as you do that the 2nd is an automatic stop sign forbidding regulation on gun ownership. You are stating an opinion as a fact.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

50 years ago, the guns in the magazines were hunting weapons, not weapons of war. You look at the magazine stands today, and there are many magazines with 'tactical' guns on their covers. A nice euphemism for guns designed only for killing other humans, as many and as fast as possible. I find those magazines more immoral and pornographic than the worst pornography on the internet. And the Lanza's of the world eat that stuff up. Time to have a careful look at the influence of that idiocy.

 

[BlackSand]

Two things. Real mental health intervention. A law that required someone to have a class 3 license before they could buy a weapon of war. For that is what the AR 15 is.

Had there been early intervention, that kid might not have wanted that gun at all. Had there been laws that required the extensive background checks for such weapons, he would not have been able to get the guns he had.

Now I have owned guns for over 60 years. And am proficient with both rifles and pistols, so don't go off on me concerning being a gun hater. But I am not willing to sacrifice any more children on the alter of the gun.

A Class 3 Firearms License has a $500 annual fee.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that taxes and fees levied to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is unconstitutional.
Would you be interested in requiring the license if they wave the fee?

.

 

[Old Rocks]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

 

[hunarcy]

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things. Real mental health intervention. A law that required someone to have a class 3 license before they could buy a weapon of war. For that is what the AR 15 is.

Had there been early intervention, that kid might not have wanted that gun at all. Had there been laws that required the extensive background checks for such weapons, he would not have been able to get the guns he had.

Now I have owned guns for over 60 years. And am proficient with both rifles and pistols, so don't go off on me concerning being a gun hater. But I am not willing to sacrifice any more children on the alter of the gun.

A Class 3 Firearms License has a $500 annual fee.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that taxes and fees levied to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is unconstitutional.
Would you be interested in requiring the license if they wave the fee?

.

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

 

[OldLady]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

 

[BlackSand]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

 

[OldLady]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

 

[BlackSand]

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving is not a Constitutionally protected right.
It's also a question on the driving test ... You can disagree with it ... But you will be wrong.

.

 

[hunarcy]

How many times do I have to tell you, I'm not getting into it?

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

 

[hunarcy]

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

You cannot apply that reasoning to assault weapns (whatever that means to you) or pistols because the 2nd does not allow infringement

 

[TNHarley]

I would love to know what law would have stopped that kid from shooting up the school.

The law that says a person can't buy a hand gun until they are 21, should have included semi automatics like the AR15.

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

 

[OldLady]

Yeah,I can see how you’d want to not have to defend such a position as you have adopted

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

 

[TNHarley]

Wow! You really don't get that "shall not be infringed" is not among the debatable(-d) parts of the 2nd. Nobody but you think that is a part of the 2nd that's in dispute. Understanding that is why nobody with any sense is going to engage with you on what "shall not be infringed" means.

• History of the Second Amendment
• https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf
  
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment | Wilson Quarterly
  
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2132&context=vulr
  
• https://amgoa.org/legal-reviews/Kates-Handgun-Prohib-And-Orig-Mng-of-2nd.pdf

Everything about the debate of guns and the 2nd comes down to the same thing much about the Constitution always has been: strict vs. broad constructionist interpretations.

I don't recall a lot of discussion about curbing gun rights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership and began shooting up the place. Someone had an excellent point yesterday--I don't remember if it was here or somewhere else, but....
50 years ago more people owned guns but there was less gun violence. Mass shootings were rare. What has changed in the past 50 years? Not the Constitution.

I don’t thing someone else abusing a right is cause to limit anyone else’s right. And if you go back 50 years and see how treatment of the mentally ill has changed, the answer to your question becomes evident

You know, we take the right to drive an automobile on public roads away from people that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. And we require that people have a licence that proves that they at least are aware of the rules of the road. There is no reason at all that we cannot require a class 3 license for anyone to purchase or possess one of these weapons of war off of their property.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right

Wrong. Driving a car on a public road is a privilege, it is a right on your own property. I would apply the same reasoning to having an assault weapon or a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Such a law would not keep a law abiding, mentally stable citizen from aquiring such weapons if they desire them. It would prevent a person such as the Parkland shooter from aquiring such weapons. If you can afford the cost of one of the assault weapons, you can afford a one time fee of $500 dollars for the background check that will assure the rest of the people in this nation that you will not murder their children.

Driving isnt a constitutional right, derp

 

[hunarcy]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

I truly don’t know the answer.Have those bans imposed by the 13 states been challenged?

 

[BlackSand]

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

At no point did I ever suggest that our Constitutional rights have not already been violated.
I am certainly not interested in attempts to violate them again.

The Constitution is not a matter of what I want ... But what I have a right to.
If you want it to apply to something else ... You are going to have to change the Constitution.

States can and do regulate firearms.
No one is require to give a shit what your personal desires are ...

.