First, he says he "wouldn't call them loopholes, but the Second Amendment does include space for legitimate gun control." I used the term "loophole" for its obvious meaning, "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc." However, Adam's answers are much more directed at the need for gun control. He continues: "There's some reference to gun owners being 'well regulated' in the text itself. Well, it's government that does the regulating. And we know that the founders who wrote the Second Amendment supported gun regulation, including gun bans, gun registration, and safe storage laws." Two direct hits on gun rights so should we call it quits here? No way!
Adam Winkler confirms the legal possibility of gun control with, “More importantly, the scope of the right as it has been shaped over the course of American history permits government significant leeway to regulate the right so long as the right is not nullified or destroyed.”
Seems to me like prohibiting assault rifles, requiring universal background checks and limiting open and concealed carry to only those with a specific need does not nullify or destroy the right of an individual to have a weapon in his or her home for protection as the Supreme Court recently ruled.
With these hard facts and a Constitutional Law Professor like Adam Winkler to back them up, why haven't the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence gone to court?