A very common problem in policy debates is conflation of what would be wise policy with what the courts think is permissible under the constitution. After all, the Constitution has been amended many times because 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures thought it was a good idea. Sometimes this happened because the plain language of the constitution was thought to be inadequate or inappropriate -- viz. 13 and 14 -- or because politicians didn't like the way the courts were interpreting it -- viz. 16. So it should be possible for us to have a discussion about what sensible public policy would be on gun ownership and safety without referring to the Second Amendment or what you think it means. That's a separate question. Yes, as a practical matter we might come up against it if we wanted to implement our policies, but we ought to be able to cross that bridge later.
So a guy entered a supermarket in Atlanta today carrying all of this upon his person:
This image was provided by the police, and you can read a discussion of the incident here. (For some reason the news stories say he had five guns but I count six.) Without referring to the Constitution, do you believe that it is wise to allow people to carry what appears to be a high powered semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, three semi-automatic pistols, and a revolver, into a grocery store? Please justify your answer. And by the way, the turkeys and hams are already dead.
Answer the question I asked, not some other question.
Extremely bizarre comment: I just got an anonymous comment accusing me of ignoring this guy. You see why I have to moderate comments.