I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious.
And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.
Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.
In Heller five SCOTUS justices have one interpretation on the Second Amendment while four ascribe to a completely different interpretation - and the majority of 5 wins the argument over the minority of 4 but that does not mean the minority did not have a cogent well-reasoned position - in fact IMHO it was much more cogent and well-reasoned.
As far as the sorts of arguments about "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use (such as rocket launchers) and the actual inability of citizens to in fact to oppose a modern US army that would have it out-gunned... that was a matter raised by the majority in Heller.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.