However, such verbiage is trite, meaningless and legally insignificant, to say nothing of the fact that firearms are one of the most heavily regulated consumer products in existence at all levels of government.
Besides the totally uncontroversial and current statutory propositions that felons and the dangerously mentally ill might be prohibited from owning firearms, or that guns might be restricted in sensitive areas like schools and certain government buildings, Heller and McDonald explicitly protected the right of Americans to own and use the most common firearms in general (and criminal) use, the semiautomatic handgun. You could potentially ban every purported "assault rifle" and "high capacity" magazine, and it would only account for a tiny fraction of the firearms used both in crime and suicide. Notably, despite their often scary black features, these types of rifles are actually used in hunting and sport, and thus outside of Bernie's willingness to seriously restrict.
Arguing about the 2A, however, is really just a red herring in the gun rights discussion. Many proposed laws, such as UBC's, would likely pass constitutional muster, and other laws first need to be enacted before judicial challenge. Democracy is the biggest obstacle to most gun control, not the Constitution. Seemingly popular UBC's couldn't even pass a Democratically-controlled Senate with a vocally supportive Democratic president (without mention of a sure defeat of such laws in a Republican House), while pro-gun rights amendments like concealed carry reciprocity actually garnered a clear majority among senators. Our elected representative reflect popular will if for no other reason than they want to get reelected, and poll after poll demonstrates strong and increasing support for gun rights.
= new reply since forum marked as read