We’re debating that which is unconstitutional to begin: ‘gun control’, ‘safe zones’, ‘gay marriage’, etc.
The Left and the Courts, but I repeat myself, have NEVER had an issue using their personal opinion to create ‘law’ (just see the ‘gay marriage’ fiasco ruling).
Using your ‘more open’ ‘gun control’ suits still fails to take into account the clear/plain English of the 2nd: shall NOT be infringed; yet, laws still stand that allow many an infringement. Constitution trumps any ‘precedent’, yet is nary a basis for consideration.
Sorry, but to say “Don’t think so” flies in the face of what already IS. One only need look at the current thought crimes and cries of ‘Islamaphobia’...these are not getting more permissive, they are getting *restrictive* by the day!
You're too pessimistic for my tastes.
Almost none of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are absolute. Free speech can be limited, as can freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, protection from search and seizure, habeus corpus, and a host of others. However, historically there has been a tremendous burden on the government to permit qualification of those rights. No such compelling circumstances exist when the only consequence is some precious snowflakes feewings being hurt.