Thank you for acknowledging my post. It is usually impossible for me to post on most sites because my "posts" do not pass the censorship czars who run the sights. This happens on both the left and the right. The right to bear arms is indeed protected by the second amendment but that does not mean everybody has that right. In a society some people relinquish their rights to certain freedoms. If I interpret your post correctly you feel that it is improper to have convicted felons own and carry firearms, not because you feel it is a good idea, but because the way the constitution is worded. I answer you in this way. By this logic a person who is in prison should have the right to bear arms while in prison. When a person breaks the law he relinguishes certain rights. In many cases his personal freedom is one of them hence incarceration. This is the same with gun ownership. Should all felons be banned from gun ownership? No of course not. Nonviolent felons pose no threat to society in a violent way. However the solution is simple. At time of sentencing it should be decreed if future ownership of firearms is allowed. It would not necessarily be only acts commited with firearms either. If you beat your neighbor or domestic partner to near death with a baseball bat for instance your penalty could very well include firearm restrictions. The important thing to remember here is that a court of law must impose this restriction. each case decided on its own merits. As to the rest of your post--magazine size, type of firearm, where you can carry (Chicago, DC, no carry zones etc.) are all protected by the second amendment but are abused by local laws that should be deemed unenforceable. I have a lot more opinions on the gun issue but sadly no one wants to hear them from either side.