Isn’t that an argument against “originalism” the dominant judicial theory of “conservatives”? I find it odd how “originalists” suddenly become very interpretive of the Constitution when it suits their political needs (see also: Heller).
The fact the govt controls a military would be reason for the founders to demand even better weapons in the civilians hands. The founders had been through tyrannical governments and knew what happens to the unarmed civilians.
I know this causes fear in folks and they want to infringe on that right. That is the way the bill of right reads.
People can pretend otherwise but that is the way it works.
Note : The US was founded on natural law which dictates we have the right to self defense. Rights govts do not grant nor can they infringe.
Justice Scalia, one of the stronger voices on individual right to bear arms, wrote in D.C. vs Heller that the right was neither absolute nor unlimited, and therefore the government can regulate guns and their ownership. You're categorically stating as a matter of fact that citizens can own military grade arms, that this is what the bill of rights says. But that is not true. It's not the law of the land, nor is your opinion undisputed by legal scholars. You get to say it's an opinion that's out there, but when not even Scalia went that far, it's a fringe opinion.
Unethical leaders and folks in power will attempt to twist the language to meet their goals. This corruption is what causes problems in govts.
The constitution limits the govt and clearly defines how those limits are to be changed. With a constitutional amendment.
Precedents can not and do not change the constitution no matter how hard it is wished to be so.
If this were actually true, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court and the members of that court wouldn't rule differently all the time.
As far as ownership of military grade arms - that stems directly from the wording of the Second, and is given some validation by the judicial commentary in the Miller decision (that's the one where the court ruled that the defendant did not have a constitutional right to possess a sawed-off shotgun, on the basis that it is not a common military weapon). The exact boundaries of 2A are yet to be determined, but the wording of Heller strongly imply that "assault weapons" are protected - it specifically cites "... in common use at the time" as one of the criteria for protection, and it would be very hard to argue that a firearm of which 9 million were made (and sold) in 8 past years alone is not "in common use".
It would be the ultimate irony if this argument that it's all about the militia wins the day, but combined with individual interpretation of the right - which would imply that every citizen has the right to own military grade weapons (even fully automatic, since that's what militaries use, after all) - and only them; not hunting rifles etc.
These organizations are still controlled by their state governments, and the National Guard can, and does, deploy in support of operations overseas - a Federal-level operation.
To think that this is comparable to what the Founders thought of as militias at the time is just not true. Their position is even more clear in The Federal Papers.
I understand that you have serious arguments, but there are many other serious arguments that disagree and this debate has continued for generations. I think it's factually incorrect to say that it's "clear", by any definition of "clear" beyond 'it's clear to me personally'.
“A properly run business, being necessary to ensure profit, the right of the people to keep and bear suits, shall not be infringed.”
Its not hard to use "word algebra" to see the equation.
I highly doubt that was the intent. You have to look no further than Shays' Rebellion.
If you are implying something, is it really orginalist? I was under the impression that the entire theory of originalists is not to interpret.