Quite simple. There is no great movement to ban the ownership of guns
Yes there is, liar. Examine Biden's campaign platform. Examine laws passed in the SOTC (what you might call California). Examine the attempt to ban guns in NYC, Connecticut, and the ongoing attempt to ban particular guns or magazine containing more than a few rounds.
save for a few far left types.
No. These are laws already passed. They are unconstitutional.
What there is a great movement for is the non-traditional position of no regulations.
Regulation does not mean banning. I am discussing the banning of all or some guns or their magazines, or their accessories.
Guns have always been regulated in one fashion or another.
Regulation is not banning.
Dodge City Kansas had a ban on firearms within the city limits, etc. as an example.
Unconstitutional, both by the Kansas State constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court held that the ownership of guns under the Second Amendment applied only to the Militia until the Scalia ruling in Heller in 2008.
The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
Any debate over gun ownership by the Founders applied only to that of the Militia.
Wrong. The 2nd amendment is talking about two similar rights, not one; both related to self defense.
1) The right of a State to defend itself as a State by forming militias. The federal government also has this right, and their militia is called the National Guard.
2) The right of an individual to defend himself as an individual.
The 2nd amendment does not grant these rights to individuals or States. The right is inherent. The 2nd amendment specifically directs the federal government against passing any law that infringes on this right, either for States or for individuals.
2nd Amendment of the United States said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The militia is formed by States. They are how the States defend themselves. This is iterating the State's right of self defense as a State.
The people are the people...that is, the individual. They have the right to keep and bear arms. That means ANY kind of arm. The federal government has no authority to infringe on either right. The 2nd amendment is also binding upon the States.
And as guns become more powerful, and the populace becomes more irresponsible, the need for regulation is increased.
Nope. Not constitutional to ban guns, their magazines of any size, their accessories, anything. Infringement means infringement. ANY kind of infringement.
No longer can we drive around with our rifles in the back window.
Yes we can, and people do.
Problem is you right wingers have lost touch with reality,
and your fantasy world does not fit in with the real world.
Define 'reality'. and 'real'. Betcha can't. Buzzword fallacy.
It is like when you make childish comments like this "These are the things liberals want to ban.
You just demonstrated that you want to ban guns, at least some guns. Q.E.D.
You don't want to discuss the topic.
Lie.
You want to simply dictate to people and preach." with no supportive evidence.
My evidence is the Constitution of the United States and various State constitutions.
One is expected to take the word of liars as a matter of fact.
You deny the Constitution of the United States??
And life does not work that way save for in the mentally mind of the delusional.
Psychoquackery. Insult fallacy.
You are going to have to do better than that. The Constitution of the United is very clear here. The Supreme Court has no authority to change it.