You've raised a very interesting question, that if Xanthro (and the gun lobby in general) admit that at least some gun control laws are constitutional, then why were we arguing?

Because in truth it gets worse for the gun lobby. The NRA likes to talk about the 2A as if it prohibits most if not all attempts at gun control; but the truth is, the gun lobby would be delighted if things were as Xanthro keeps claiming, that some gun control laws are found unconstitutional, while others are not -- "win some, lose some" as the saying goes. As if!

The truth is, that with one caveat, NO gun control laws have been found unconstitutional on 2A grounds -- not since 1939 anyway. That is why I kept asking Xanthro for even one example of a gun law being struck down (since 1939), and he is simply unable to provide any. Because the dirty little secret of the gun debate is that the 2A doesn't stand in the way of gun control. The lobbying efforts of the gun nuts, and the lack of political will, are the reasons why school children and college students and we the people continue to be slaughtered by guns. But not the 2A. Gun carnage is a political -- not a legal -- problem.

The NRA and the gun lobby have been so successful at changing the debate, that most Americans assume the Second Amendment gives them a right to own some or all guns. As with the right-wing's mantra of the "liberal media" -- repeat it often enough for long enough, and eventually even liberals believe it to be true. That's why I've taken offense at the false assumptions regarding the 2A made by Walter Shapiro and letter writers in this thread, even those who are not gun nuts, that the 2A is a barrier to gun control. It is not.

Don't take my word for it; read the case(s) yourself. Start with these two: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); and Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996). And stop letting the gun lobby define and control the debate. With mass shootings so frequent now, it is too important an issue to be decided by lobbyists.

OK, I checked in after seeing 'Fast Food Nation' -- a pretty good movie about the harm being done to America by greed in another industry (not firearms) -- and I cannot resist pointing out that the two modern cases belatedly cited by Xanthro ARE NOT 2A CASES.

"Printz v. United States 1997" struck down part of the Brady Bill on grounds that the U.S. govt cannot order state officers around, and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2A.

"United States v. Lopez 1995" struck down a federal law because Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause, and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2A.

In a normal conversation, when a person in Xanthro's position is informed that the cases he or she cited (for the proposition that the 2A prohibits at least SOME gun control laws) in fact have nothing to do with the 2A, that person either apologizes and moves on, or asks you to explain what you mean, and then apologizes and moves on.

Not our Xanthro. He just keeps slinging it, because he doesn't know what it means that a case was not decided on 2A grounds. Listening to him talk about the law is as painful as listening to Bush-Cheney talk about the Iraq Occupation (or pretty much anything else).

I did however enjoy the exchange where our buddy Xan explains that the Constitution protects unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority; was confronted by the fact that Japanese-American citizens were interned during WWII; and explained it away by saying it was unconstitutional but the Supreme Court found it constitutional. Nice.

The truth is that solid majorities of Americans have wanted real gun control for decades. Only the political will of our "leaders" is keeping that from happening, not the 2A.

WeikuBoy: "The truth is, that with one caveat, NO gun control laws have been found unconstitutional ON 2A GROUNDS -- not since 1939 anyway. That is why I kept asking Xanthro for even one example of a gun law being struck down (since 1939 [the year of the Miller case]), and he is simply unable to provide any. Because the dirty little secret of the gun debate is that THE 2A doesn't stand in the way of gun control." (emphasis added)

Xanthro [hours later, after the few cases he has cited have been pointed out to him as having nothing to do with the 2A; paraphrased]: "Uhh, if you were asking about the 2A, as opposed to a bunch of things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about here, then you should have specified the 2A. I can't help it if you're a poor writer."

No, Xan, the problem is your fundamental dishonesty. But wait . . . could it be? . . .

Xanthro: "Since Emerson . . . is the only case in the 20th century that speaks directly to the issue [of the gun lobby's reading of the 2A] . . . [and] Since you know there is only one case [that speaks to the gun lobby's reading of the 2A] . . . then specifically ask[ing] for others [made little sense to me]. "

Translation: After literally days and nights of dodging the issue, and trying to throw sand in people's eyes by putting forward a handful of cases that have nothing to do with the 2A in the hopes that no one would notice, Xanthro admits that NO GUN CONTROL LAW HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN ON 2A GROUNDS, and that with with the exception of one very recent rogue decision THERE ARE ZERO CASES THAT TALK ABOUT THE 2A AS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS AS OPPOSED TO STATES RIGHTS.

Phew. That was all I wanted. That must have been painful, Xan. But wait, what's this . . . ?