So without getting beyond what anyone feels like reading, I am not a fan of the gun case reasoning. You won't find a stronger 2a proponent than me. Suffice to say, that case was bullshit reasoning. The second amendment does not imply anything, nor does it condition anything. It means what it says. The right to keep and bear arms. There is no "self defense" qualifier. It does not opine on the permissible purposes. In plain language, it unconditionally grants the right to keep and bear arms. Running the majority's logic tree down to the end results in the absurd.
And think about how if 2a means the right to self defense with a firearm, do you really have a right if it hinges on the government's definition of self defense? After all, we have varying differences and nuances in each state's laws governing permissible self defense circumstances. Which state is correct? Which ones are too narrow? See what I mean when you open the door to a shit show thru faulty reasoning?
Aside from this, what has gone unnoticed is Justice Barrett's concurrence. Upon first glance, it appears unremarkable. If you haven't read the reasoning of the majority opinion, Barrett's concurrence won't leap out at you as anything of interest. But in the context of what the majority just held and how they got there, rethink what she just said. It is a big deal.
So without getting beyond what anyone feels like reading, I am not a fan of the gun case reasoning. You won't find a stronger 2a proponent than me. Suffice to say, that case was bullshit reasoning. The second amendment does not imply anything, nor does it condition anything. It means what it says. The right to keep and bear arms. There is no "self defense" qualifier. It does not opine on the permissible purposes. In plain language, it unconditionally grants the right to keep and bear arms. Running the majority's logic tree down to the end results in the absurd.
And think about how if 2a means the right to self defense with a firearm, do you really have a right if it hinges on the government's definition of self defense? After all, we have varying differences and nuances in each state's laws governing permissible self defense circumstances. Which state is correct? Which ones are too narrow? See what I mean when you open the door to a shit show thru faulty reasoning?
Aside from this, what has gone unnoticed is Justice Barrett's concurrence. Upon first glance, it appears unremarkable. If you haven't read the reasoning of the majority opinion, Barrett's concurrence won't leap out at you as anything of interest. But in the context of what the majority just held and how they got there, rethink what she just said. It is a big deal.