[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed.

It's worth noting that the reading of the 2nd amendment you describe ("having your cake and eating it too") is exactly the way that Alito's majority opinion interprets the 14th amendment in relation to the SC's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade. Because abortion was not considered "acceptable" in the 1860s (at the time the 14th was ratified), it cannot be acceptable now, despite it being settled law for nearly a half-century.

Many who cheer on the cadre of rich old men asserting their (and their supporters') ability to control women's bodies are the same ones who happily ignore the fact that AR-15s did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written (and of course that the rights in the constitution were only for white male property owners).