"[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

[Broderick Sampson]

I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course <sigh> ...

Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller
decision:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
history and judicial interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to
that fact.

Some amount of restriction on access to firearms is necessary and
constitutional, and we shall have it. We should have more of it.