Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As with most other rights, the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. In his dicta from the Heller case, Justice Scalia noted that regulation or prohibition of "dangerous our unusual" weapons would not run afoul of the Second Amendment.
I am well aware that Mr. Justice Scalia wrote this (moderator Frank Ettin keeps beating me over the head with it), but the fact Mr. Justice Scalia wrote that doesn't make it true. It means that's the SCOTUS interpretation and we're stuck with it, but even the SCOTUS has on (rare) occasion reversed itself, indicating that they are not infallible.
No matter how you parse it, there is simply nothing in "shall not be infringed" that in any way opens the door to "reasonable regulation." Regulation = infringement. The Founders were conversant with the word "reasonable." They specifically provided in the 4th Amendment a prohibition against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. That they did NOT provide in the 2nd Amendment for "reasonable" infringement (regulation) should be clear proof that they did not INTEND for the RKBA to be subject to regulation.
In fact, that's just what they said. Exactly.