Quote:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html Excerpted: Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2?53. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment .

Read the decision.

The Disneyland drama can continue but the US Supreme Court rarely reverses its decisions.

If they want to regulate mass murderers in some way fine but it is after the fact and will not prevent mass murders from occurring.

An AR15 assault rifle might not pass muster as "unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Its unrestricted sale might be regulated. However, "connected with service in a militia" in its broadest sense in connection with national defense might be argued.

The NFA banned machineguns and other gangster weapons in 1934. So all gangster killings ended then (not). There are over 100 million serviceable firearms in the possession of the US population. There were 11,101 homicides attributed to firearms -- that is a pretty small percentage of the operable firearms in circulation.

Treating the "disease" of criminal behavior with firearms is going to be more effective than treating the "symptoms" of misuse of firearms by a very small percentage of people.