Brett Kavanaugh: Banning a ‘Class of Arms’ Like Banning a ‘Category of Speech’

[bj139]

I read it word for word, and I think you're wrong. What the 2A says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How you're interpreting it: "...the right of the people to keep and bear only such Arms as can be carried on the person, shall not be infringed."

Plus, this nation depended heavily on privately-owned ships, armed with privately-owned cannon, to fight the British Navy in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Given that history, does it really seem reasonable to think that the Founders would have wanted the 2A to apply only to small arms?

However, I'll say that you could be right, since the only purpose noted (in the 2A) for the RKBA is to ensure arming the militia, members of which were required to provide their own individual weapons, but not artillery or mortars.

I was only thinking outside the box or maybe fully inside the box as justification for absolute private citizen ownership of M16s since they are the standard military weapon today.
A nagging question I have is whether states have the right to violate a citizen's constitutional rights as enumerated in the US Constitution.