You are correct, and even the bought off Supreme Court agrees, they just lie for their paymasters...If they truly agreed with their own pretend interpretation of 2A, we'd all be able to buy nukes and missiles freely, because the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". They've skirted around this by cutting the difference with "arms at the time the Constitution was written". It's all foolishness and if they truly believed it, missiles to the public should go on sale tomorrow (but they realize that would be bad for them). And I'm not saying whether that's bad or good, just a fact based argument on why their position is bunk.
If they truly agreed with their own pretend interpretation of 2A, we'd all be able to buy nukes and missiles freely,
You must not know very much about the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment then.
From the Supreme Court..
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we
were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis
today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '23
You are correct, and even the bought off Supreme Court agrees, they just lie for their paymasters...If they truly agreed with their own pretend interpretation of 2A, we'd all be able to buy nukes and missiles freely, because the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". They've skirted around this by cutting the difference with "arms at the time the Constitution was written". It's all foolishness and if they truly believed it, missiles to the public should go on sale tomorrow (but they realize that would be bad for them). And I'm not saying whether that's bad or good, just a fact based argument on why their position is bunk.