It appears to be the opinion of a lot of a lot of folks more educated in constitutional law than myself, that firearms can be regulated to some degree.
Being educated isn't the same as being smart or having wisdom.
Where that degree is appears to be the rub.
IMO, folks who believe the constitution has no limits have a superficial understanding of constitutional law.
Speech can be regulated but is generally protected. The searching of a person or property can occur but has built in protections.
Libel and slander are limits to the 1st amendment, not limiting to the baptist religion.
'Unreasonable' is the limit of the 4th amendment, not searching everyone without just cause.
Murder is the limit of the 2nd amendment, not who may 'bear' and how.
Why the second amendment would be any different, I don't know.
That said, I generally agree with the notion that the second amendment has been eroded more than others although I don't see this veto as being an example of that.
Michael Brown
Then maybe you don't really understand the meaning of the 2A. The 'shall not be infringed' part says it all I think.