1.Roe V Wade was badly argued and poorly written.
The Second Amendment is poorly written (it doesn't make any argument that applies to modern society since the U.S now has a standing army.)
That could be used as an argument for overturning precedent set by a previous case, not a Constitutional amendment. The 2nd Amendment is written perfectly fine with 18th century grammar and vocabulary anyway.
2.Roe V Wade overturned historical precedent
Contrary to the lies of Antonin Scalia, Heller overturned historical precedent which through legislation regulating gun ownership had established that the Second Amendment provided for ownership of 'arms' in the context of a militia, and did not establish an individual right to own a gun.
Precedent is generally set by cases rather than legislation, and either way there's no such precedent. Arguments that Miller set this precedent are nonsensical, because if it had, the question would have been "was Miller in the militia?" but it was in fact "was Miller's gun useful for a militia?" which implies that the 2nd Amendment provides for individual ownership of firearms that are useful for a militia, not that they must be used in context of a militia.
3.Roe V Wade invalidated the legitimate concerns of the unborn fetus to life and, so, did not strike a proper balance between competing rights.
Heller invalidated the legitimate concerns of those living and dying with gun violence and so does not strike a proper balance between competing rights.
No rights are invalidated by the responsible keeping and bearing of arms, so there's no competing rights in the case of guns. Nobody is promoting legalizing murder.
4.Taking abortion out of the political arena creates division in society.
Taking gun ownership out of the politica arena creates division in society.
This standard could be used to help judge precedent on competing unenumerated rights, but of course not on enumerated rights.
5.Overturning Roe V Wade does not mean the Supreme Court bans abortion, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.
Overturning Heller does not mean the Supreme Court bans guns, it means it leaves it up to the people through their legislatures rather than to five random lawyers.
Although true about the effect of overturning Heller, this is of course not an argument to overturn Heller.
There are a number of intellectually dishonest arguments here:
1.The Second Amendment is as written. That you interpret it to mean 'an individual right to gun ownership' does not make it so and does not mean that Justicies can not rule otherwise and does not mean that this is what The Framers intended.
2.True. So, basically Heller is 'precedent upon precedent.' The same thing as the judges said testifying before the Senate. Justices are not bound by precedent and can easily overturn both Miller and Heller. Overturning precedent and ruling against the notion that there is a individual right to own a gun would both be consistent with this draft ruling overturning Roe V Wade.
3.In fact, this draft Supreme Court ruling does not argue that 'abortion is murder.' What it argues is that there is a compelling interest for the public to decide these things rather than judges. If it argued that 'abortion is murder' it would have banned abortion on the basis of 'fetal pershonhood.'
So, it would be, again, be perfectly consistent and only perfectly consistent if the Supreme Court said 'when it comes to baring arms, it's up to the public to decide where the balance between competing rights should be.'
4.Again, it's only definitely in your mind that there is an 'enumerated right' based on the second amendment. That the Founders themselves also wrote laws that regulated and limited gun ownership more than strongly suggests that they did not believe there was an enumerated right for an individual to 'bare arms.'
