I have seen no indication that Dead Corpse is willing to concede that there are places in which guns are justly not allowed.
There is a new story here on FR wherein a 92 year old woman shot her grandson and his wife with a powerful handgun because she believed them to be home invaders. The shot she fired went through one and into the other. Should this woman be allowed to possess this gun? Should one who is demented? Or just plain evil? Should Islamic militants be allowed to purchase heavy weapons and practice with them as has been the case in several instances in the last few years?
Not all actions taken for the public welfare are excuses to grab power or the result of tyrants. Hamilton would be the last to dispute this. And the Constitution he fought for so valiently explicitly says that Congress can legislate for the "general welfare."
I also note that you have dropped your insistence that you want to "ban" modern firearms, and I am still waiting for the term you would apply. Do you have one, or will you continue to ignore the fact that this is what you are advocating?
As far as the old lady goes, accidents happen. Unfortunately. Does the fact that one accident occured with one firearm mandate the restriction of them all? Sounds like you think so. And you know what? You can make all the laws in the world, and accidents will still happen. Unfortunately.
Your intepretation of the "general welfare" clause again betrays a mindset tutored by the political left. At this juncture in American history, it's safe to say that clause can be renamed the "anything goes" clause.
I think that you have been living in a "blue state" too long, and have allowed to much leftist-think to penetrate your thinking. I can sympathize, having lived in California for almost 20 years. It was hard to resist.
Your Islamic mutterings are beneath contempt, and are unworthy of response, as you doubtless already realize.