It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. ...
I'm confused by your posts.
First, under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court does not have the power to invent new constitutional rights. It only has the power to "say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison
, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137
, 177 (1803), including to say what the constitution protects. The opinions of the Supreme Court in Heller
and its progeny did not invent any new right out of thin air; they merely stated what the Second Amendment means and what it protects. You may not like those opinions, but they are binding. As a result, it is merely an accurate statement of law
to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, subject to certain conditions. It's not "disingenuous" to accurately state the law. Whatever may have been written in older books, the authors of those books did not possess the power to say what the law is, unlike the Supreme Court.
Second, the majority opinion in Heller
expressly considers and rejects the claim that the Second Amendment had been interpreted differently in the past. That is actually one of the main things addressed in the opinion.
Third, as I have previously explained
, the preface to the Second Amendment does not limit the scope of rights granted by the operative clause. It's very common in a legal document such as a contract, statute, or constitution, to have clauses in the main body of the instrument that go beyond the purpose announced in the preamble to the document.
For example, imagine that a high school contracted with a publisher to purchase some books and the preamble to the book sale contract stated that "WHEREAS a well-educated student body will be best positioned to attend University after high school". The body of the contract then goes on to describe the number of books that must be delivered and a variety of other more specific terms. Could the publisher later argue that, notwithstanding the specifics in the body of the contract, it only is contractually required to deliver a fraction of the books promised because only a fraction of students will go on to University? Of course not, because the preamble to the contract does not override the terms of the contract. These principles of interpretation of written documents are described in the Heller
opinion itself, and in my previous post.
Fourth, 10 USC § 311(a) does not purport to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I am unsure why it was injected into this thread.