absolutist argument which asserts that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country are used mainly for "sports" shooting, target shooting, or are purchased by "collectors." They tout the Heller decision as an absolute affirmation of their right to "keep and bear arms" with no restrictions or accountability whatsoever.
They conveniently overlook, however, the part of the Heller decision which states:
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The SCOTUS also recognized that licensing and registration of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment:
"The Court applies as remedy that "assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
The Heller decision also upheld the Miller decision which limits the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment applies.
Although this was essentially the same SCOTUS which gave Dubya the 2000 election and appointed him as President, they at least had the intelligence to recognize the need for, and legitimacy of, gun control in this country with the Heller decision.
= new reply since forum marked as read