so people didn't get my post about guns

[Major Nikon]

33. Depends on if you subscribe to Scalia or Souter/Breyer/Ginsburg/Stevens school of thought

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

...

“To keep and bear Arms”

...

the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

...

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html