Three Ways Alito Defends the 2nd Amendment

The NRA is not perfect, and sometimes they are just a little bit too sensitive.  It's not "A Guy Thing",
so their opinion is often subject to some other opinions.  Which I'm happy to provide.

NRA-ILA | High Court Opinion Hardly the “Stunning” Reaffirmation of Heller Some Portray It to Be:

Significantly, Justice Alito’s opinion not only argues that the Massachusetts stun gun ban is clearly unconstitutional under Heller, it does so in a way that defeats the reasoning of prior lower court decisions upholding so-called “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans.  He states, for example, that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes” and that if “Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Alito also admonishes that a state cannot use relative numbers to establish that a weapon is “unusual” when large numbers (in the case of stun guns, “hundreds of thousands”) are already in use by private citizens for defensive purposes. Finally, Alito preempts the argument that some popular arms can be banned as long as others remain available: “the right to bear other weapons is ‘no answer’ to a ban on the possession of protected arms.”

I don't understand what the NRA had in mind when they posted this , but I think I disagree with the NRA analysis, because I believe they haven't evaluated Justice Alito's opinion in a "practical" context.   Here's how I interpret Justice Alito's opinion:

(1)  Guns are dangerous.  They were conceived, designed and built to be dangerous.  To consider guns as anything less than a 'dangerous weapon' is to relinquish them to the trash-heap of errata.

Here, Justice Alito acknowledges the lethality of guns, accepts it as a fact of life, and dismisses any arguments that firearms should be considered in any other context.

(2) Given the first argument, it logically follows that when anyone attempts to define one class of firearm as 'more lethal' than another, it is a fallacious attempt to impose restrictions based on trivial issues.

Is one gun capable of making a person more dead than the next gun?  Although he is too polite to say so, Alito dismisses such arguments as pompous pedantry.

(3) Alito accepts and affirms that the Second Amendment is not limited, and that attempts to limit its scope are antithetical to the Constitution.

When the argument is that 'okay, we will let you have flintlock pistols, because the Second Amendment says we have to give you SOMETHING .. but we won't give you automatic pistols because we don't have to .. nanny nanny wa wa and go screw yourself!'  Alito says that this is juvenile justice and puerile pedantry.     Essentially, Alito is saying that ... 'if you're going to allow the common man to possess arms for whatever purpose, it's insanity to force his descent to the 'least common denominator'.  Rather, allow him access to firearms which are at least equal to the foes against which he might find himself'.

Okay, I made up all the quotes ...

... but I think that the interpretations might have been a small part of the factors which encouraged Judge Alito to rule as he did.

We who live by the Constitution do still have a friend in court.