How would that control anything?

Limiting ownership to non-powder weapons is not a ban on handguns.

from Heller. As you were saying?

until it is challenged and overturned, the suggested "solution" in your OP is unconstitutional.

It is the wording that is "unconstitutional."

until the supreme court agrees with you, what you think about it is irrelevant.

...by law, existing Constitutional process and, until overturned by another SCOTUS ruling or superseded by a constitutional convention, defines "constitutional".

It does seem unlikely that any of the current five justices concurring on ALL aspects of this opinion are likely to, for one, be presented with another case that would reopen the issue and, for another, change their minds.

Accepting that as being reality, do you have a course in mind for dealing with that decision and its consequences other than waiting for a justice to die or retire?

The wording of the amendment is such that it ascribes the "right to keep and bear arms" to the people. It does not define "arms," nor does it create a differentiation between types of arms. While it does not employ the even broader term "weapons" (thus excluding such weapons that were not considered "arms" in the lexicon of the day, paving the way for restrictions on artillery, etc.), nothing in the language can be seen to exclude firearms. Infringing on the right to keep and bear some arms is still infringement.

to only producing hard copy, printed documents infringe on the 1st Amendment?

...that restriction, if passed into law, would no doubt spur the development of liquid and gel type propellants that would have mostly the same effect in terms of energy delivered to the projectile.

The side effect of that would be new patents on the most efficacious material developed and likely leading to some of the 1%ers becoming richer and the average middle class firearm owner paying a few dollars more for ammo.

Another side effect would be underground production of powder fueled ammo and the black-market that goes with it. I don't see a good effect from giving criminals an incentive to try manufacturing explosives.

After all, if it's not unlimited, then it should be as limited as possible, right? Just like in other areas of law and constitutional rights.

relied upon for its more limited obligations in Article I and in 2A to provide for a "well-regulated militia." The militia in those day was considered well regulated when citizens reported (when called) with a firearm suitable for infantry application in proper working order, and with a knowledge as to how to use the arm. While air guns and other technologies were being developed at the time of the Constitution's writing, the well-regulated arm of the time was a firearm, not a knife, not a club, not an experimental non-"fire" weapon.

That's why it's so important that we remain progressive on the 2A...we can't let those that would rather us be victims win.

see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172172353#post9

"Non-powder" doesn't eliminate other chemicals.
For that matter there are many fine solid, non-powdered chemicals.

You sure you want to go down this road, bro?

That rifle pre-dates the constitution and is far more lethal to humans than 3/4s of my powder based firearms.

And while we're on the subject, would non-powder include lasers? I like lasers. I can build a mean rail gun too.