comment: >
  
  That Supreme Court decision was about stun guns and they included other criteria (based off Heller) such as military vs. civilian use, inherent risk, and how “dangerous or unusual” the weapon is. 
  The line quoted above is shutting down the claim a modern weapon by nature of being new is “unusual” and can therefore be banned.
context: Spineless court makes decision based on their feelings creates confusion. 
  What a surprise!^/s >
  
  The arm must be on fire all the way to the pit. >
  
  Well that would be the literalist/originalist interpretation based on words on a page. >
  
  Caetano v. Massachusetts
  The SCOTUS was unanimous 9-0  including RBG "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" >
  
  Guess we better breakout the vx nerve gas. It's a bearable arm after all. >
  
  Yeah, where do chemical weapons fired as projectiles fall in this? Why should your handgun have more rights than my grenade launcher?