Yes indeed. Everything depends on the specifics. What a revelation…

And European governments, whom our liberal pals wish to emulate as the avante-guarde sophisticates who long ago got rid of such thorny issues and put the rednecks in their collective places (most of them, anyway) found out something that in due time will come around and change the evasive answers about “specific” situations:

It (context and specificts on guns) matters not a damn, and they banned them outright, just to be sure and nip the issue in the bud for things blossom out of control. No civil rights busybody would rest if, say, the 14th Amendment was deemed not to apply to the states, and is turns out that South Carolinians by golly gee wiz could own slaves after all!

If you don't have certain rights at the state level, then for all practical purposes, you don't have them. This tick picking is what is called “a distinction without a difference”, and is akin to having the legal “right” to own a car just so long as it is parked only on Federal park property, has the wheels removed, the engine melted down, and you keep up a yearly registration fee of 10,000 bucks. And you can never take it to your own driveway or use it on any day other than Wednesday.

Why the hell bother?

Let's hear it for those particulars and the devil in the details Texas two step from Sotomayer the wonder judge, who's decided some real wonders!

Sen. Coburn's great fault was that he did not ask the direct question, “Do you read the decision the Court made in the DC v Heller case and if you did how could you come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states, when that decision asks the lower courts to apply the questions of due process and incorporation to any cases they decide?”

Sotomayor' vetting by the Senate is a joke and everyone knows it. The only saving grace of her forgone confirmation is that she is fundamentally no worse than any of the other 4 justices who can't read the constitution.