"By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home" (emphasis ours).

"The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents."

"Justices Stevens and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions. Stevens asserts that the Second Amendment (1) protects the individual right to bear arms only in the context of military service and (2) does not limit government's authority to regulate civilian use or possession of firearms. He describes the majority's individual-right holding as “strained and unpersuasive”; its conclusion, “overwrought and novel.” Stevens was joined in his dissent by Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter."
----
By John Paul Stevens:
"For more than 200 years following the adoption of [the 2d] amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.

Antonin Scalia, the Steve Bannon of Supreme Court justices, winner of the Roger Tawney award for judicial excellence, the whackdoodle of "original intent," is responsible for loosing on us a 2d amendment turned inside out. We now have people who are strapped with all manner of weapons in places where they have no business, as an exercise of their "rights." But that's just the annoying part.

I asked you to lay out and make clear where the transposition of "right to bear arms" became the constitutional/absolute right to own a gun and exhibit it like a man with a raincoat and nothing on underneath. You haven't done it. I refer you to the text of Heller, as follows;

"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.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms."

Scalia, 5 to 4, says you can own a gun. Big whoop. That was never in question. But you and a lot of other people who probably cannot read as well as you can find in this a constitutional right to own a gun. You may as well stop here and decide if you are in fact one of those people.

I confess to not agreeing with the Heller ruling, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that the so-called right to own a gun comes with qualifications. They're right there in front of everyone, and no one reads them. Again:

"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." And, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms."

In short, you can own a hammer or a knife just for the hell of it. The ownership of a gun must be for not just a legitimate purpose, but for a traditionally lawful purpose. And nothing in Heller or the 2d amendment places any prior restraint on state or local control; indeed it's clear from the above that no such restraint has ever been read into the amendment.

Now, your personal fantasies aside, do you still think you have a "right" to own a gun? Or won't you acknowledge that owing a gun is akin to getting a license to drive a car? You have a right to apply for one, and good for you if you pass the various tests and get one. But even if you get one, you still have to drive in conformance with relevant law.

What does matter is that the so-called right to own a gun comes with qualifications. — tim wood

Your post is all over the place, but if this is your beef, then I've never denied that certain restrictions on gun ownership are prudent, lawful, and necessary.

Ah, agreement! Looks like we're the reasonable ones! And my post is not all over the place. It's veritable arrow of incisiveness.

Part of the problem is that the extreme positions of the NRA have driven liberals to take 180º opposite positions--perhaps in contradiction to what they would otherwise hold.

For instance, I don't have any objection to people owning guns for sport -- hunting, shooting a clay disks... that sort of thing. I don't have any objection to individuals owning guns to protect their home. A hunting gun or a pistol is more than adequate for that purpose.

I am not in favor of open carry or concealed carrying. I am not in favor of people being allowed to buy, sell, trade, or possess guns not suitable for sport or hunting (like the animals one can legally hunt in North America). No assault rifles, no sawed off shotguns, no bump stocks, no automatic (and very limited semi-automatic) guns.

Some liberals are prone to over-react and desire to eliminate all guns altogether, for any purpose. That's too extreme. There are too many of what I would call appropriate guns and gun owners to ban them. 100 million? 150 million? Way too many to collect.

We have laws which up the gravity of property crimes committed with guns. There are laws which clearly label murder as illegal. Criminals ignore laws such as these. So, the police need to do a better job of catching criminals.

So, the police need to do a better job of catching criminals. — Bitter Crank

Say rather, they need to do a better job of catching dangerous criminals. Since the US has the highest proportion of its population in jail, it's almost a tautology that its police are the world's best at catching criminals. It's just that most of them are no danger to anybody's body or property, because all they did was take or own some drugs.

Perhaps if the US police spent less time arresting weed smokers and throwing them in jail they'd get better at catching dangerous criminals.

Where good detective and police work are most needed is in the violent slums, where detectives and police don't like working very much. It is unacceptable for multiple killers to not be tracked down and arrested. Yes, it's difficult in the ghetto to do that, but it can be done.