> Further still I am strict orginalist. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today

> Further still I am strict orginalist. meaning I do not engage in the idea of "living document" and that the words should be interpenetrated as they mean today instead they should be used in the context of 1776. I and other orginalist do this by citing sources for that time period such as the Federalist papers to understand what the ORIGINAL MEANING of "General Welfare" was at the time it was written. Strict originalist, you say? So, regarding the second amendment, what class of weapons do you consider "Arms"? Weapons from 1776? 1787, when a majority of delegates signed? 1778, when it was ratified? 1779, when it was the law? And, these weapons were common arms for the Rev war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_the_American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_th... . Any arguments saying later on weapons would just be a non-originalist interpretation of the constitution.