It's clear that they are simply using "originalism" to cherry pick what falls in line with their personal opinions.
The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Historically, if you were black, no gun. White and knew the governor? Weapon up.
The supreme court's policies have been pretty straightforward if you read the constitution. The legislature has the responsibility to write the law. Not the supreme court (which is un-elected), not bureaucrats (who are un-elected) - without explicit law to make it possible.
The fact that everyone is screaming that an unelected bunch of mostly white folks are returning power to congress and telling them - no, be democratic - reveals a awful lot about the current state of the United States.
Claiming this in the same post you accuse someone else of "deliberate misreading" is a bit funny.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen goes substantially further than that.
The majority of states in the US will have the same abortion laws they have always had.
If there was a handheld contraption with a trigger that could fire a small nuclear projectile that could destroy an entire city would the right to have one be protected by the second amendment just because it fits the general definition of a gun?
You are just illustrating my exact point. Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, whereas nothing of this sort is clearly and explicitly said about abortion rights. Here, again, conservatives focus on what the law actually says, and liberals focus on their preferred policy, and if their preferred policy is not to be clearly and explicitly found in the law, it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”.
An individual right to keep and bear arms was newly discovered in 2008, in a 5-4 decision. It took 220 years for a single vote majority to find evidence of it.
> it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”
That's a funny way of describing the Ninth Amendment.
It's truly hilarious, given the context of when it was written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
> During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.
Even today, there are organized, state-run militia (the National Guard) and unorganized, independent militia.
Only in the context of a well-regulated militia, at least until Scalia amended the Constitution in Heller.
Notice the first phrase. Absolutely nothing here says “every Joe wacko can have military grade arms in case they want to overthrow the government “
Tell me it’s originalism to interpret the words above in any way other than what it reads as: a description of state militias.
Regulated means armed with military grade guns, and is not a description of legal oversight (eg regulations)
"A well regulated Militia" literally meant a military armed citizenry.
The intent was to have no paid or professional military and the military was to consist of citizens bringing their arms from home to fight with.
2nd amendment can be losslessly paraphrased:
"because it is important to form well armed mobs, every Joe wacko can have military grade arms"
It literally says a well regulated militia. Fact.
Spare me your creative interpretation masquerading as originalism