If it seems that cut and dry, the argument is missing many things. One thing to consider is that nothing is a literal absolute in the law; it's not an algorith

If it seems that cut and dry, the argument is missing many things. One thing to consider is that nothing is a literal absolute in the law; it's not an algorithm. For example, nobody denies the government's right to regulate arms as far as background checks, denying them to criminals, and until very recent history, much more stringent bans on possession - until recently, centuries of American jurists interpreted the law differently, and many still do; were/are they all illiterate? So easily dismissed by online amateurs? Also, government can outlaw advanced arms such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and fully automatic weapons. The government also can't regulate speech according to the text - except that it can: Dangerous speech (shouting fire in a crowded, dark movie theater where there is none, or inciting someone to murder), false commercial speech (lying in your ads), slander, etc. are all illegal.