Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.
Have you even made an appointment?
They wouldn't let me make one for you. They said they know your nuts but don't quite meet the criteria as a danger to yourself or others. Yet.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
I get ya. Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem and the inanimate object is not the problem. The problem is and always will be people. One needs to be able to deal with evil people and evil governments!
Yes, for the most part "law abiding" gun owners aren't the problem. It's criminals and gun owners who were law abiding until they weren't. We aren't banning hand guns in the country - which are most of the gun deaths - so the gun control debate is just a waste and time and energy.
Mental health is the real issue. No one wants to tackle that one.
Have you even made an appointment?
They wouldn't let me make one for you. They said they know your nuts but don't quite meet the criteria as a danger to yourself or others. Yet.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.
Yes they did. Other designs as well. People owned there own cannons too.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
The Puckle Gun was around back then. The founding fathers definitely knew about repeating rifles.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
"regulated" meaning prepared, fit, effective, etc.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
I don't think they had any idea what was about the come down the pike in terms of technology. Hell, it was another 45 years until Sam Colt invented the cap and ball revolver.
Regardless, no rights in the Constitution are absolute be they speech or the ability to own firearms. You can't yell fire in a movie theater or libel someone, and there's a compelling public safety interest for some regulation of firearms. Again, the only gun control that would truly make a difference if a complete and total hand gun ban, which will NEVER happen and is un-constitutional. We're better off looking law enforcement solutions and figuring out the problem of alienated white males who are most of the mass shooters.
Well, in 1775 , Sled, all long guns were "military grade". If we follow you're logic then regular citizen patriots should be allowed to own M-60's, grenade launchers, etc, etc.
About a quarter million do own such things. There have been two crimes committed with legal machine guns since the inception of there registration and government control. Both were domestic violence IIRC.
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
Sled, none of us can say with certainty what the founder meant on guns. If they had specific intentions they would have been far more explicit, but instead they left it pretty vague- i.e., "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are kind of contradictory are they not? Firearm technology was basically unchanged in the 100 years before Lexington Green (e.g., "brown bess" was adopted in the late 1600's). It's impossible for us to sit here 228 years later after the Bill of Rights became law and guess how they would have felt about guns in 2019. And whether you like it or not, it is a "living, breathing" document, be it by Constitutional Amendment, or by the fact that the courts have evolved over time in how the interpret the darned thing. Maybe this is why they wanted an independent judiciary in the first place.
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Ummmmmm...no. I always get a big belly laugh in my media room when people say this means the founder wanted gun regulation.
Comments
That is indeed what the founders meant in that the people should be armed similarly. Funny how people think there freedom of speech is protected on here but by your standard it's only protected when spoken in public or produced by pen or single plate printing press.
The bill of rights says what it says and means what it says. It is not a living breathing document. Most of those signing it were carrying guns and always had arms at hand.
https://newsmaven.io/americanminute/american-history/independence-day-why-is-it-so-important-4--1lEhbQUWxEfbZc74OLA/
All that being said, I don't care about your guns and am not looking to grab them.
Changing technology arguments regarding the Constitution often ring hollow to me. The Founders could probably envision repeating rifles far easier than they could electronic communications, which is to say, speech.
Regardless, no rights in the Constitution are absolute be they speech or the ability to own firearms. You can't yell fire in a movie theater or libel someone, and there's a compelling public safety interest for some regulation of firearms. Again, the only gun control that would truly make a difference if a complete and total hand gun ban, which will NEVER happen and is un-constitutional. We're better off looking law enforcement solutions and figuring out the problem of alienated white males who are most of the mass shooters.