“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Common sense gun restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, as stated above in the opinion that also stated bearing arms was an individual right. Reluctance is all that prevents such restrictions from being enacted.
Since we can very much disagree with it on two dozen different ways and it was not the best example of the Supreme Court being historical and methodical.
Likewise as for the actual details of the case whether you can ban handguns as arms. Or require guns to have a trigger lock is kind of the thing we are arguing what is common sense and not. 5 of the SC justices said yes this is common sense and we can argue it again and again and it is a circular argument. (It is also what started this argument yesterday) And thus I am moving on
-----
But even if we agree with Heller (moving on) I do agree with you on the meta point you are making. But what is sensical is once again seems obvious on the surface but once we start talking people realize we may disagree, or even if we agree will the individual States or the US House and Senate actually do the right thing?
gestures at my Texas with all my faith
My mad governor says Mental Health will solve all this yet he will not expand Medicaid and actually cut Mental Health this year, meanwhile he is doing gun expansions. shrug
Maybe? The present is never eternal, it too will change.