Red herring. My statement stands.Actually, no - when dealing with an issue like this, you look up case law, if any.
Fortunately, that case law exists.
"Arms" in the context of the 2nd was defined by the court to mean any weapon "of common use" and "part of the ordinary equipment" that was suitable for service in the militia.
You can ignore this if you want, but it -is- the current legal holding, and so, in a discussion of this topic, you do so at your peril.
I'm sure they had case law to uphold slavery and Jim Crow laws. Are you saying you agree with that?
Ok. Case law trumps the Consitution. And you agree with that. Got it.