[RabidBartender]

It doesn't matter what the most ardent 2A supporters believe, it only matters what the Constitution says. The FF didn't put 'reasonable restrictions' in the Bill of Rights.

However, if the USSC rules that that these same 'reasonable restrictions' are indeed valid and become the law of the land - would it make sense to agree that any other gun control restrictions that is argued up to the USSC level (including Lautenberg, weapons for felons, etc..) be considered 'reasonable restrictions' as well?

Don't get me wrong, I am against this same thing - I just would like to see the justification for having it both ways.

[Eagle Eye]

Don't get me wrong, I am against this same thing - I just would like to see the justification for having it both ways.

Don't bother me with stupid arguments. If you cannot provide some sort of proof that anyone advocates RKBA for incarcerated persons or that the founders advocated the same (and quotes will show that they didn't) then don't even bring this topic up because nobody is wanting both ways as you state.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"It doesn't matter what the most ardent 2A supporters believe, it only matters what the Constitution says."

Actually, in all reality, it is "Might is Right". We only have those freedoms we are willing to fight for. Words on paper are meaningless when faced with an armed adversary. When that adversary is your very own government, you are in a pickle.