> If this was the actual interpretation being promulgated legally then there's all sorts of weird follow ups to it...
Not really. You can only go places like that if you use an interpretive framework were words can be stretched past the breaking point and speculations piled one on top of the other to take you anywhere where you want to go. A lot of people think that's not a reasonable way to interpret the law, and they do have a point.
> This is a perfectly sensible precedent...
If that's "perfectly sensible precedent," cite the case that established it.
The entire concept of judicial review is built on this benchmark - "if this, then why not that?"
That it is not established is because the SC has definitely not interpreted the 2nd to mean "power to overthrow the government" - but it has mostly managed to do that by completely disregarding the first half of the 2nd's wording in favor of "citizens may own small arms" - which is oddly specific given the rest of the phrasing, but that was the conclusion they drew from Heller[1]
I'm responding to the claim that the "founders" intended it for armed insurrection: did they? Because the Court does not interpret it that way, and if it did then you do in fact have to answer questions about why any limits on owning hardware sufficient to overthrow the government are allowed.
A claim about Founder's intent in the constitution isn't some idle statement: the purpose and reason for the Supreme Court is to carry through interpretation of that the intent of the constitution for law of the land, otherwise why bother saying it? If we're going to ignore law and precedent then none of this matters.
> The entire concept of judicial review is built on this benchmark - "if this, then why not that?"
Even so, your interpretation had another fatal flaw: you weren't balancing any interests.
But in any case, it's still a nonsense straw man.
>>> This is a perfectly sensible precedent...
>> If that's "perfectly sensible precedent," cite the case that established it.
> That it is not established is because...
Then it's not a precedent.
> I'm responding to the claim that the "founders" intended it for armed insurrection: did they?
The founders literally committed armed insurrection, and IIRC it's pretty well documented that the understood the necessity of armed revolution in certain circumstances. I believe there are even some direct quotes in this thread. I can also recall off the top one that spoke positively of a rebellion every 20 years:
> God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve itβs liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
I was very clearly referring to the fact that if the 2nd amendment were to be taken as an intent to allow citizens to revolt against the government then it is not clear on what grounds the seemingly absurd corollaries of that, as a legal position, would be dismissed. Which you haven't addressed at all except to say "but it's not actually precedent yet!"
It is not - because the Supreme Court has very obviously in Heller not interpreted it that way. So I don't know of what value anyone can argue this was the intent because the body defining the law of the land and the interpretation of the constitution does not agree with you.
But even if we grant the SC is not the be all and end all, you still haven't managed to actually address why that position would be absurd? What use are firearms against a Federal government which, to take an extreme example, gives itself Dune-style shields for all officers and personnel, but not civilians. Why are limits on arms, actually suitable to overthrow the government - so say, maybe a whole lot of Javelin anti-tank missiles as they are currently proving useful - not within the remit of the 2nd?
Not really. You can only go places like that if you use an interpretive framework were words can be stretched past the breaking point and speculations piled one on top of the other to take you anywhere where you want to go. A lot of people think that's not a reasonable way to interpret the law, and they do have a point.
> This is a perfectly sensible precedent...
If that's "perfectly sensible precedent," cite the case that established it.