[TheRealThing]

We the people ratified and adopted a Constitution, and elected a representative body sworn to uphold it. To my knowledge, that still holds.

So you, like the others of the liberal persuasion, insist on sidestepping the part which states we are each of us granted certain “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is crucial, because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent. [Breitbart]

In what way do you see the right of free speech's scope to be regulated under the constitution or in the minds of the Framers? The scope of any right was never intended to be continually redefined by the self appointed of the day, according to the founding documents. In any case, you're dressing up your argument for gun control in a powdered wig. And, it's the same old story and tired tactic which is always employed by the left. Rename, repackage or otherwise re-spin the tired tenets of social justice as if they had the first thing to do with our founding when in fact, they were part of lunacy or err of the very European governance of which they chose to escape, ultimately forming the government of this great land.

But to me, your argument is washed away by one phrase of DC vs Heller, with regard for defining who is to be regulated where gun ownership is concerned; "for traditionally lawful purposes." Lawful citizens are a free people and are to be honored and treated as such. Now, and here is where the liberal machinery runs off the track, the unlawful are not extended such rights or privilege. They are to be dealt with under the law.