Yeah it does. If the decisions of past courts are changeable by future courts then it's a worthwhile discussion to consider alternative interpretations of the second amendment that would allow controls on firearms that, under current interpretation, would not be allowed.
I agree. What I'm saying is that nobody around here actually does that. Nobody actually bothers to develop their own interpretation, and propose gun policy based on that interpretation and taking practical realities into account.
And for sure nobody around here attends to the fact that the courts have already done a lot of thinking about the practical realities. Even if they must arrive at different conclusions, they will still have to think through the same broad set of issues.
It's always, "the 2a doesn't rule out nuclear weapons, what now?" Ignoring that "now" actually consists of almost two hundred years of thinking about that very question. Like I said, whenever one of these threads pops up, everyone goes right back to first principles, as if they've never really thought about it before.
Personally, I believe the second amendment is a weight around the neck of potential American legislation designed to prevent nutters from killing people. Any attempt to introduce any legislation at all will always fall foul of "shall not be infringed". The moment you require someone to demonstrate a 'right' it ceases to be one and becomes a privilege instead. Any control of any sort will naturally infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners because the very act of asking them to demonstrate their lawfulness is an infringement.
See what I mean? The courts have actually done a *lot* of thinking about the problem of balancing human rights with human regulation. Over the years, the courts have even come up with a workable solution. But you write here as if it's an intractable problem that nobody--including you--has ever actually bothered to grapple with in any meaningful or useful way.
ETA: Take the right to life, or to liberty, or to property, for example. The courts have recognized that these are rights that shall not be infringed. But the courts have also established that sometimes, under some circumstances, infringement is acceptable. And in general everybody agrees that this judicial compromise is acceptable, that it satisfactorily balances society's competing goods. The weight hanging "around the neck of potential American legislation designed to prevent nutters from killing people" is not that it falls afoul of "shall not be infringed", but that it falls afoul of meeting the courts' long-established and generally-accepted legal standard for permitting such infringements. But nobody here--including yourself--ever moves on from "shall not be infringed" to "what have the courts actually ruled on the question of infringement, and what kind of policy would be consistent with those rulings?"
Let alone moving on from there to "here is the court's reasoning, and here's where I dissent from the court and why, and here's the policy I would propose and why." Like I said, whenever one of these threads pops up, everybody resets back to pristine ignorance and struggling with first principles.
But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.
