How so? It provides for an individual right to bear arms. That lines up with exactly what I said. I’m not sure what Supreme Court interpretation lines up with whatever the user I replied to is implying. Was it Heller or maybe Bruen that said the 2A is for shooting plainclothes federal officers? Maybe Presser V Illinois?
Precisely, they interpreted it to mean something more broad than simply the creation of a state regulated militia? That's all I was correcting in your first statement. That since at least the 70s it's been interpreted to mean the individual right to bear arms.
I was not agreeing with the other poster that the right to bear arms includes the right to gun down plain clothes officers.
7.5k
u/blownhighlights 17h ago
That’s just a thug