No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.
Grant us your arcane knowledge of its true meaning, Wise One.
I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are
If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.
Now, you could argue for a living tree approach and argue that the meaning of the words in the Constitution should evolve with society and use such legal reasoning to argue that it has become a recognizable individual right under the Constitution were you so inclined. However, this would fly in the face of one of the main originalist legal philosophies that have long been held up by the right as the model for jurisprudence.
To admit so overtly that textualism is little more than a meaningless pretext for conservative judges to impose their personal beliefs and partisan interests on everyone else would be akin to screaming the quiet part at the top of one's lungs. And even so, you still get nonsense like the majority holding like
D.C. v. Heller that are really a grievous affront to textualism on a substantive level. Incidentally, that case is a great way to see if someone claiming to be a textualist is a true believer or a pretextualist hack who really just wants to see right-wing legislating from the bench,
Poll
