. . . and you'd still be just as wrong. Words have meaning, obviously: the same words mean different things to different people. Ultimately, this particular element of our discussion is neither here nor there.
Leave it to you to miss the point.
Don't blame me for your propensity for using words you think mean the same thing but don't.
Fine. "As a conservative, I say that society may place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
Acting under the legitimate powers and rules alloted to the government by the people, I agree with you. I ask you yet again, what are your metrics for determining what reasonable restrictions may be placed on individual rights for the good of society?
"Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?"
Really. The 2nd was never incorporated into the 14th.
So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?
There are no metrics. How does one define "reasonable"? The 4th Amendment protects us from "unreasonable" searches. What are the metrics for that? C'mon.
"So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?"
In my world? What kind of question is that? Quit acting like an ignorant asshole. (Not that you are one, mind you, just acting like one. Feel better?)
A total gun ban in Massachusetts would not be against federal law or the federal constitution, but would violate Article XVII of the Massachusetts State constitution which states, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Now if the people of Massachusetts did away with Article XVII, then, yes, Massachusetts could ban guns.