In the post alluded to I asserted that the Second Amendment does not support individual holding or bearing of arms or of the holding or bearing of arms for hunting or personal self defense.
Why did I say that?
Read it and tell me how you can disagree.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Not only does it not say that it's OK for individuals to keep and bear arms - for any purpose - it specifically says that it's only OK to keep and bear arms as a component of a well regulated state (meaning "national" as I previously pointed out) militia.
That doesn't mean that one can't keep and bear arms as individuals.
It only means that if one does that act, that act is not defended by the Constitution; the legislative components of United States governments can pass laws as they see fit in regulation of that or any other act not protected by the Constitution.
Since the never ending band designee of daily mass shootings is underwritten by the rock solid stand that the Constitution says that any kind of weapon can be owned and brandished by almost anyone, any time and anywhere - which the Constitution clearly does not say - one is left gasping in incredulity and asking the question how did we get to this?
The answer is a simple one: the doctrine of derived implication.
The doctrine of derived implication says that if the Constitution mentions something, a highly paid enough band of lawyers can, with finely honed circular imploding logic derive any right they want.
That was the basis for the Warren Court deciding Roe vs. Wade; I think there they even had to derive "privacy", because I don't think "privacy" is mentioned in the Constitution.
But unlike Roe vs. Wade which has resulted in immeasurable social good, the Second Amendment Derivers have only delivered mayhem and misery.
But they've made a lot of money.