I ask, because that's what D.C.'s legal team has just been handed by Heller's legal team. A couple highlights:
The rights secured by the first eight amendments were not conjured at random, but in reaction to specific outrages of the King’s rule. The Second Amendment is no exception. While Petitioners and their amici may not believe that English law secured an individual right to arms for self-defense, colonial Americans certainly did, and it was the repeated, wanton violation of that right that led them to demand and ratify he Second Amendment.Those "specific outrages" are no less intolerable, and no less a threat, today (with the exception, perhaps, of quartering of soldiers--there doesn't seem to be much of a push to force that on us).
Petitioners plainly disagree with the Framers’ Second Amendment policy choices. Petitioners’ remedy must be found within the Constitution’s Fifth Article, not with linguistic sophistries or an anemic standard of review that would deprive the right of any real force.The citizen disarmament advocates, in D.C. and elsewhere, don't have to like the Second Amendment or the right it protects--but that freedom to dislike it does not grant them license to change its meaning to something they find more palatable, or to say that it, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, can be reduced in power to that of little more than a suggestion to lawmakers. There is a process for amending the Constitution. Have at it.
P.S. Removing the Constitutional protection from a fundamental human right of the individual does not cause that right to cease to exist, or to cease to be fundamental. Banning guns is the easy part--coming to take them is where it might get a bit hairy. Who wants to try first?