The 2nd Amendment is not about protecting yourself. Or registering your weapon with government. Or limiting the type of weapon you have. It's about protecting the security of a free state, and ensuring the existing of a well-regulated militia, which we obviously don't have.
SCOTUS said as such with regards to the 2A, just look at the Heller decision. That being said, protecting yourself also includes fighting against a tyrannical government.
I agree. At the same time, I think SCOTUS is FOS. Their own precedent precludes the consideration of anything outside the plain language of the subject provision, absent conflict or ambiguity. Yet they regularly go outside the 2nd without first overturning the precedent that would stop them.
Its fine to disagree with their interpretation of the 2A. I think its a faulty interpretation designed to give a right that our founding fathers did not intend, and ignores the circumstances at the time. But that's the interpretation we are stuck with for now. Thus the basis of my comment.
The point is, though, we are not stuck with that interpretation. The Constitution merely acknowledges rights that exist independent of it, & independent of what the founders thought. A well-regulated militia is one wherein the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
We are stuck with that interpretation until SCOTUS overturns it.
I guess if we want to be bound by them, whilst Krasnov is not, then yeah. Personally, I wonder about the wisdom of playing by the rules when the opposition rules by fiat. It's like counting on the midterms to save us, or the rule of law, or Jesus, or Superman.