Wedge: I get that u state an “ absolutist “ 2A position, even including , as u said, “ nukes”. Now let me say that u correctly note, without quite stating it , that our 2A rights include what was lawful in 1791, which means under British Common Law, which our Constitution SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATES AS OF 1791.
Well there were no nukes, tanks, repeating firearms, invented or probably even contemplated in 1791. What category do those weapons fall-in? Also, in Britain and the Colonies, there were all sorts of weapon restrictions. Some national Some local. Some urban and others rural?
We both agree that there was a generalized common law right of a non-felon, sane, adult (21) to own & carry arms. But ,as noted that right was limited , in some places and types of arms, NOT as you assert by the best means possible. You are reading into the words of the text and expanding their naked meaning. A No-No to a Strict Constitutional Comstructionist.
So you do believe in a living/ expanding interpretation of the Constitution. Me too! It means that we have to decide what things like: “ freedom of speech, press and religion” “ due process of law”; “ secure in their persons and property”, “ equal protection of the law”, “ freedom of the press”, all Intentionally general statements, meant by Madison for Judicial and Legislative interpretation, means in any given era or situation. Classic example , if u r a Textual Absolutist on the 1A, then, in that case, u r free to false cry “ fire” in a crowded theatre, right? See what I mean?
