Not according to SCOTUS who has ruled we have a right to self defense, and own most types of normal guns.
A ruling made by simply inventing things that aren’t there, made by a guy, who’s now dead anyway, who always claimed to be against that sort of thing.
Going back a bit…
Eh, I took it to be that everything about it was so alien to him he got into a state of spewing breathless purple prose. Sort of a verbal soiling of pants. Which still is odd if as per his own words he has shot handguns before, maybe part of it is that he had to put his face up close to the receiver rather than holding it out at arm’s length. And I get the feeling many people don’t know what actual burnt sulfur smells like. (He did later apologize for using the term PTSD).
The constitutional case for a right to own firearms is stronger than a constitutional case for the right to an abortion. Do you disagree with Roe v. Wade as well?
*Five *guys. Justice Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Antigun people always seems to have problems with numbers.
Within the limits the amendment itself defines, yes, otherwise no.
The due process requirement of the 14th, unlike the 2nd, is *not *self-limited.
It may still be relevant given the current registration system and the possibility that conscription may be implemented once more.
My understanding is that the right to bear arms is a natural right, which means it existed even before the Second was written. However, like some natural rights, it may be abridged for one reason or another. Hence, gun control varying across states.
Where might I find a list of “natural rights”?
If Hamilton or Madison were alive and running for election, would you disregard their numerous gun-advocacy statements through their long political careers, and trust them solely on the letter of the Second Amendment as their campaign speech?
So the explicit mention of the rights of the people to keep and bare arms isn’t as compelling as the case for abortion, even though the topic is addressed nowhere in the Constitution.
That kind of thinking is why it’s hard to think gun grabbers are acting in good faith.
Ah, the irony. 
There’s something *else *explicit in there, isn’t there? 
No, I’d recognize them as advocating our having a ready military force. In case of, oh, maybe, insurrection.
Right under the gold-fringed flag.
Yep, militias and such. DC vs Heller drew a different conclusion however.
IOW, the entire intended purpose of the thing. As you know.
In stark contrast to all previous jurisdiction and the historical record.
You do realize, I hope, that you’re doing a fine job of showing how the amendment has been interpreted so pervertedly so frequently that getting rid of it, and all the excuses it has been used to cover, would be for the best. It certainly would be more edifying to hear what else this alleged fundamental right rests upon, especially since the US would now be on equal footing with the civilized world whose experience somehow just doesn’t even count to those like you. It might even result in some saved lives, don’tcha think?
Fewer than the criminalization of abortion.
Serious question for all those in favor of doing away with the private ownership of guns for public safety.
Diseases that often arise from lifestyle choices - heart disease and cancer - kill far, far more people than guns in US. If it makes sense to ban gun in order to save lives, why not ban a bad diet and lack of exercise?
Hell, according to this there’s a 1 in 85 chance of dying from land vehicle accidents. Why not ban ATVs and motorcycles?
We’ve been through this in another thread, Waymore. Land vehicles aren’t designed primarily as weapons, and they have massively beneficial uses, socially and economically. Deaths arising from accident are a byproduct. Where as guns are weapons, they are designed to injure and kill, used as designed they will injure and kill, and they have no beneficial applications in the transport of humans and goods, with the social and economic benefits that ensue. Hence there’s a massive, massive cost to banning vehicles which does not arise in banning guns.
But you know all this already.