You've mistaken my argument. If you follow the thread from the beginning, I'm merely using DC v. Heller as an example of how the court can set precedent to rein

You've mistaken my argument. If you follow the thread from the beginning, I'm merely using DC v. Heller as an example of how the court can set precedent to reinterpret a fundamental right under the constitution despite a 200+ year history of the opposite. This was in response to being told > Hundreds of years of case law in the Anglosphere contradict your view While that is true currently, it doesn't mean SCOTUS can't come along and decide things differently. It also doesn't change history if they were to do so.