>

It is the literal reading of a document written over 200 year ago when things like tanks and missiles and nuclear weapons were unthinkable. Or even just guns that could fire multiple times without reloading. But yes, surely a literal reading is what is needed, and not a reading as to what the actual intent behind those words were (to allow states to continue to train their own militias).

every minority in the United States should own an ar-15 I guess is my rebuttal to your point

Great, they can all have AR-15s, and the militarized police will have all the cause they need to drive tanks through our cities. Any time a cop wants to murder someone, they can with no questions asked, because hey look, they're armed! Any protests pop up? Well, any of the big Republican donors could just fire off a few missiles from the safety of their mansions on the other side of the country. To protect private property, of course. Kyle Rittenhouse has already shown them that it's legal to murder people as long as it's to protect private property that you don't even own.
But no, of course. Obviously, the smart thing to do is to reward the gun manufacturers in all this and pay them LOTS OF MONEY for MORE MORE MORE MORE GUNS!!!! That will solve our problems. All the data shows that MORE GUNS = MORE SAFETY. Or...maybe it's more guns = more preventable tragedies. But no, you're probably right. Guns for everyone will make us safer. What could possibly go wrong?
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. >

The SCOTUS has made it clear that not all weapons and not all accessories are available to all people at all times.
I just wish my daughter didn't have to do active shooter drills in 3rd grade.  But radicals and their nutty ideas have gotten us to that point, and want it to go even further. >

I wonder if you actually realize how incredibly unlikely that is. It is on the order of .00004% chance. Four hundred thousandths of one percent. I'd be happy to work through the math with you. Most people think hundreds or thousands of children die every year in mass shootings because of the continuous misinformation and exaggeration of figures who make an opulent living off disinformation and exaggeration.
Perhaps if some of the people who advocate "common sense" gun restrictions were capable of common sense risk evaluation, we could all discuss this more reasonably. Who is really being radically unreasonable? >

I'm a risk assessor, so you're barking up the wrong tree.  
You casually disregard the impact of the event, regardless of its probability, and the need to mitigate the risk based on that landscape. >

Alright, Risk Assessor. So are we taking into account the impact of the hysteria which causes otherwise rational adults to mistake an incredibly attenuated risk for an imminent one, scaring the shit out of everybody, especially little kids, for no good reason? How would you quantify that harm, Risk Assessor?
How many children die in an average year due to mass shootings, according to Giffords. Do you know?
Tens of millions of us were forced to do duck & cover drills at school and were assured by the news every night that nuclear war was imminent. Maybe that is why boomers are so fucked up, would you say? >

You know, you are ignoring a hard point to address that a 3rd grader, and other school children around the country, are doing these drills despite how low the risk is. You are using statistics to say that the kids shouldn’t need to because they are at such a low risk of actually being killed, but the fact of the manner is, kids are going through active shooter drills in an industrialized nation, not some war zone.
So, why are you trying to minimize the experience of the parents and children who have to go through these active shooter drills? What do you get out of it? >

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? >

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. >

If you're LGBT or a woman, the second amendment is all you have to defend yourself. >

And it shouldn't be like that. I'm a trans woman and I think it's really fucked up that I have to worry about getting shot in the back when just going to the grocery store. We need to get guns out of citizens'hands (Via something like government buybacks) and revamp the process of getting them but since about half of Americans seem to have a gun fetish that won't happen. >

Things shouldn't be this way, but they are. It's going to get worse before it gets better too. If you think the cops and the government are going to be on your side when the chips are down, well, I hope you're right but I don't share your faith in our institutions. >

They all are.  The right to bear arms was a state level protection not a personal one.  It also was never meant to be without limit as even the founders who wrote the amendment took part in gun control restrictions after writing it.  The current interpretation of it is absurd. >

Nobody has stated it is without limit. Heller takes care to re-state it is not without limit. If your case is tight, what do you need the straw men for? >

You’re right that Heller held that the Second Amendment was not without limit. But that was Scalia, writing against a background assumption that the conservative Court would manage gun control policy in whatever way they deemed fit. (That is, typical Scalia.)
Bruen kind of tossed the analytical framework implicit in Heller. After Heller, courts applied kind of conventional constitutional law reasoning - e.g., balancing tests, parsing the opinion, drawing analogies, etc. 
But Bruen announces a dramatic departure from what judges already know how to do. It says that you have to look to history to see what kinds of limitations might be permissible. There is no “balancing” at all. You don’t ask whether it might be a reasonable restriction on gun rights (akin to how time, place, and manner restrictions can apply to free speech), you don’t ask whether it’s a general law that only incidentally impacts gun rights (akin to how laws that burden free exercise of religion are analyzed), you’re not even asking whether some putative “gun right” is in any sense related to your self-defense (therefore following the core rationale for the Heller ruling). Instead you go back and see if the founding generation thought to enact laws restricting firearms and ask whether current restrictions are more or less like that limited set of historical examples. 
It’s an extraordinary approach to constitutional law, wholly unlike how we analyze laws that implicate any other right protected by the Constitution. So it’s not at all clear how to apply it now. If the only historical examples of “sensitive places” where firearms were prohibited were courthouses, how do you think about restrictions on carrying guns on planes or in schools? If the founders never thought to regulate gun lethality, does that mean we have no tools for doing so, now?
It’s all utterly nuts, totally bananas, and an example of the kind of constitutional chaos Thomas/Alito have in store for us. >

I didn't say it wasn't extraordinary, that seems impossible to argue with. But they knew they couldn't leave the right to bear with strict scrutiny because judges would have continued to ignore it.
New York knew they would lose Bruen and they knew it would set catastrophic precedents. They could have changed their law. They could have devised a system for granting permits that was not a capricious patchwork, an arbitrary system that was de facto prohibition except for the rich and well-connected. But they wanted to showboat instead.
Immediately after Bruen, New York decided it would be best to play 'Im not touching you" games with Heller, designating entire public regions as sensitive places and forbidding carry in private places unless specifically posted. Why isn't that extraordinary? Why isn't that blameworthy, a source of confusion and chaos? New York knows what is going to happen but they did it anyway.
I doubt very much the SC would interfere with firearms restrictions on airplanes. They probably would on subways because it makes the right to bear arms meaningless for everybody who doesn't have an automobile. What do I know. I'm just saying it isn't as confusing as people pretend, there is a toolkit and much could be accomplished that is presumptively legal, and it got to this state by courts and legislatures ignoring Heller, but somehow it is the SC's entire fault. >

The Court could have invalidated the NYS permit-granting scheme as inconsistent with Heller, because it achieves in practice what Heller prohibited, without needing to go as far as it did in Bruen. That is absolutely on the Supreme Court, as is the emerging chaos in the courts after that decision.
I agree that Hochul’s next move on gun laws was insanely stupid and ill-considered. But I don’t agree that bad constitutional law is the fault of the legislatures that choose to disregard it. Even a good-faith effort to implement a gun control policy in NYS would invite some kind of constitutional challenge, which is all the courts need to issue opinions. >

If they don't want to get stung they might decide to quit poking the hive with a stick. >

In your metaphor, the Supreme Court is a nest of already-angry hornets looking for an excuse to sting people. >

That is how all gun control advocates perceive the Supreme Court so maybe that will reassure them. >

Well-regulated militia ... shall not be infringed.   The right likes to harp on the shall not be infringed part but not the well-regulated part. >

And you conveniently leave out the middle part. "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
That darn constitution specifies who has that right, and it's not the militia.... >

There isnt any confusion.  States dont like how the Supreme Court ruled on the issue and are intentionally defying their rulings.  Now they are tying up the courts by having all their state laws being challenged and overturned because they are not legal....and they know they are not legal.
They are wasting tax payers resources making a political statement.
The laws that are being passed by states are increasingly more restrictive and bizarre, either being passed by people who do not understand how firearms function and the terms associated with them or did not carefully read the contents of the legislation they voted on.
The Democratic party is going to have all this bite them in the ass, The laws will be over turned, laws will be rolled back even further than they were before.  Agencies like the ATF could very easily end up with less authority to define redefine terms.  The national firearms act could be ruled unconstitutional.  Democrats will lose elections as a direct result of pushing strict and nonsensical gun control, and gun and ammunition sales will skyrocket as bans create a panic. >

Swap firearm for abortion and it looks like the Dems are just playing the same game as Republicans.
The biggest difference is that most Americans support gun regulations. >

States are not defying scotus on abortion. states specially have the right to decide for themselves if abortions are legal in their state or not. Scotus didn’t make abortions illegal. Those situations aren’t even remotely similar >

It is exactly what they did. Every abortion law passed prior to the Dobbs decision was a direct violation of Supreme Court precedent and an illegal restriction of peoples rights under the constitution. And there were dozens if not hundreds of them over the past 20 years. >

All firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. >

"Smart missiles for billionaires' private use" is a hell of a stance you're taking. >

It's still the truth, at least according to a proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment that doesn't draw from extra premises not explicitly stated in the document. 
Also, every minority in the United States should own an ar-15 I guess is my rebuttal to your point.