Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety

[Spike89]

29. It isn't an unlimited right to bear any arms

It doesn't actually say "for defense" and it certainly doesn't cover all arms. Fully automatic machine guns, grenades, rocket-launchers, these are all small arms and these are all banned and although there is a small amount of trade in illegal military-grade weapons in the US, there certainly isn't an epidemic--when was the last mass shooting involving a fully-automatic machine gun, a grenade, etc.?

No one seems to have a problem with rocket launchers being banned, but of course the same constitution that protects your .22 single-shot squirrel rifle should allow us to bear any arms, right? No, we've long ago decided that full machine guns and such are not covered. It is not unreasonable or any more anti-constitutional to examine whether the bar needs to be set to prohibit large (more than 10 rounds?) magazines, and other technologies that tip the scale from hunting and reasonable personal protection to mass murder and mayhem.

The fall-back argument that we need the weapons to oppose tyranny are especially silly--you aren't going to win against tanks, drones, F-15s, fully equipped and armored marines in a fighting vehicle, or a bomb you never see coming.

Gun control and regulation is not prohibited by the constitution. There is no slippery slope.