The Supreme Court decides to take guns away wife beaters, but why not terrorists?

At first, when I saw the headline I thought it must be from the Onion.  After all, how can anyone take second amendment away from wife beaters? How can this be?  What will the NRA say?  After all, if terrorists on a no fly list are entitled to a well regulated militia shouldn't wife beaters also be entitled to guns?

But then I was looking at the word regulated and it says , "controlled or supervised." So by Second Amendment's  use of the word regulated I can only assume our founding fathers meant we should look into who buys guns before we should hand them out.  The Supreme Court must now act and take guns away from those on the terror no fly list just like they will take guns away from wife beaters.

This is what Ron Reagan said "I'm a member of the NRA. And my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But, I support the Brady bill (named for James Scott "Jim" Brady who along with Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley.  Years later James Brady died from his injuries) and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay. It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period [7 days] to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."

Why can't republicans who love Ronald Reagan and quote him all the time support his most important opinion that waiting period [7 days] to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun and that a ban on assault weapons be enacted.

Again like Reagan I don't want anyone's guns taken away, but I just want what Reagan wanted, a  waiting period [7 days] to allow local law enforcement officials to investigate the person buying a gun and a ban on assault weapons that should only be used by police officers and military personnel.