I mean Heller was a case about a statute in Washington DC that mandated you to register all weapons, while not allowing to register handguns, so they actually banned handguns for decades there.

Clearly not a serious attempt to outlaw gun ownership sure sure.

Because they still need citizens to be alive to have something to govern above, and because fascism comes in various degrees.

Again, I gave an example of fascist, unconstitutional things that happened elsewhere which were made way harder to happen in the USA because of widespread gun ownership: actual lockdowns.

In an actual lockdown the government "only" wants to prevent you to go out of your home. They can do so easily with militaries in the streets if almost no one has weapons.

And they can't do this with militaries in the street if people have weapons? Can you describe how you see this playing out? Civilians shooting it out with the military lol?

You guys watch too many movies, man. Rambo is... well, he's a bit like Santa Claus.

Also, gotta love textualism: "A document written at a time when the most advanced available weapon was a musket that takes 3 days to reload says I can own those, ergo I have an inalienable right to own nuclear missiles. Muh rights! Muh freedumbs!"

They can but it's far harder for them. Far far harder. Incidents would occur with actual shootouts yes, and "the militaries" can be a lone jeep with two young guys on it, guys who were never trained to deal with civilians. Remember they have to patrol vast swathes of land you might be thinking a battalion controlling a city, I am thinking one/two jeeps per suburb.

With frequent incidents including lethal ones it's not hard to see why the political calculus would change toward making that actually fascist policy harder to implement including having political support for it.

And anything that makes fascist policies harder to implement is a moral good

Originalism not textualism.

A document was written to give the same access to weapons to private individuals that the government has, to the point of allowing them to form private militias even.

That stays until it gets changed by a constitutional amendment

It's really a wonder how all these other 1st world countries manage to keep the government at bay without all these inalienable rights to own AK 47s and fighter jets.

Cite for bolded please?

The historical context was that of a deep mistrust of standing armies basically. The idea of career soldiers existing even in peacetime was scary.

You have several states passing state constitution provisions exactly about that.

Massachusetts for ex:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it

So it follows very clearly and transparently that the right to bear arms discussed is exactly the same weapons a standing professional army would have access to, as the militia would need them to substitute standing armies and eventually fight against them if push comes to shove.

They didn't much, governments encroach on liberties exceptionally more than in the 19th century in the west.

You have something between 100x and 1000x more rules (depending on the country) applying to every aspect of society in the books lol.

The rules about what you can do with your land alone, what you can build on it and exactly how and so on are probably longer than the totality of the rules for everything were in 1880 in Italy, France, Canada, the USA and so on.

You need to be a career expert just to know in full what you are allowed to do in detail for most things

So you're saying if we had more guns here then yhe government would be more likely to give is planning permission for obnoxious patios?

It follows from that passage that civilians are entitled to the same weapons as the military? Ah yes, I forgot, "originalism": when the text reads exactly what we want it to read, it's textualism, otherwise, it's "implicationism".

Yes. Originalism is just about "what did they mean when they wrote and passed it", it's nothing particularly strange, it's how you would try to understand any piece of ancient literature. You read a letter by a greek merchant to his lover, you do originalism every time something isn't obvious to you. You check historically at that time what a certain expression meant and so on.

The passage (and many others about it) makes it clear that the drafters simply wanted "the people" able to counterveil a federal army gone rogue. Federalist papers clarify that as well.

And the way for that to be a possibility was to allow ownership of weapons by private individuals and allow them to organize in militias, well regulated (which means organized, trained, capable at military acts not regulated in the sense we use it currently) enough to be able to fight and win against a standing federal army that went rogue, or any other invading army.

That directly , transparently implies, among many other things, access to exactly all weapons (and facilities) a standing federal army could have access to.

Do you realise how disingenuous this all sounds? When it's convenient, we interpret exactly as written. When not so much, then as intended. When convenient, words mean what they meant then. When not so much, they meant what they mean now. It'd be much more honest if you just said "I have reached the conclusion I want and here is one possible reading of the constitution that supports it" rather than going through this transparent song and dance of pretending you arrived at the conclusion from some sort of first principles.

what's interpreted as written by me or by judges that i agreed with, that originalism would interpret differently? which scotus decisions do you have in mind based on textualism that would have been different under originalism? afaik the court never had a textualist majority and no major decision is based on textualism

There are scotus decisions i consider horrific (in terms of their outcomes) but that are fully constitutional , and i don't ask for them to be reversed. Like those about the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Or the legality of drug laws (state level).

I think both textualism and originalism are silly and used as a pretext by you (and judges) to justify the conclusions you want.

Textualism is just limited, in too many cases you can't go from it to actual applications of the law.

Originalism is just the only way text should be interpreted, as the alternative is literally what you attribute to originalism, ie to read in it whatever you like and want in the present disregarding the actual meaning of a rule. Which is what the left has done for too long and now , finally, is getting fixed bit by bit.

You can't and shouldn't have any change in constitutional matters without amendments. If society changes and wants change, change the constitution by amendment. Getting new people literally invent meaning at will breaks the fabric of the rule of law.

For example if something was legal for a while it's impossible to claim it's unconstitutional until you change the constitution. Quite impossible unless you completly disregard the rule of law.

The irony in all of this is, the sort of tyrannical government that would be reasonable to rise up against is exactly the tyrannical government the guns rights folks would like to establish.

It's completely asinine to try and divine the intent of the drafters of a document when applying it to a society whose sophistication and technology was completely unimaginable to them, at least where such sophistication is relevant. How, for example, are you going to ascertain their intent on matters concerning the internet when they communicated by carrier pigeon? Same goes for tanks and fighter jets and thermonuclear warheads.

And where did your revolting friend go? Did he just do a drive by?

It's not about divining.

Take abortion, you have decades with constitutionally uncontroversial anti abortion statutes after the 14a gets passed, it clearly means the 14a doesn't cover it. Very easy and straight forward with no divination required.

It was never a federal constitution right.

Same for gay marriage, illegal everywhere in the nation for 140+ years after those amendments, then you "discover" it's a constitutional right? Lol.

Change the constitution to add it. With amendments.

You are proposing to go through the amendment process every time a constitutional question arises instead of having the Supreme Court decide it?

I am proposing going through the amendment process every time you want to change something that has been different from what you like for a while yes.

And until the left went crazy that's how they did it.

Slavery was banned WITH AN AMENDMENT. Prohibition was ended WITH AN AMENDMENT. The federal income tax was introduced WITH AN AMENDMENT. Women got the vote WITH AN AMENDMENT.

You get the picture.

SCOTUS should only be needed for bread and butter complexities that aren't obvious when you draft statutes.

Let me give you an example: does the state or the fed get the first cut of your income? Well that is a complicated constitutional question someone has to answer. SCOTUS job.

Does the no double Jeopardy rule work when it's state and federal prosecution?hell of a question, let's leave it to the experts.

Can the fed after 170 years of never giving a **** regulate stuff nationwide "because the environment"? Lol no unless you change the constitution and give that power to the feds.

you should go propose that to your government.

Sounds very nativist of you