I get it- you are an absolutist. And you’re sad/angry that court opinion for two hundred years has not agreed with you and has allowed for numerous caveats.
Hey look- I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised with gun rulings by this Court- should be in your favor.
For example:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What in that amendment spells out how to deal with copyright infringement, obscenity, child porn, threats, slander, etc etc?
Like the 2nd- it’s a framework that requires detailed interpretation by justices.
I call them violations of the prohibition on the government to infringe on the people’s right … and so does the Courts who excused those violations and who continue to excuse them by now using those past excused violations as precedent. The logic they use reads like a Monte Python skit.
What in the 2nd Amendment is unclear to you?
See the post before yours- would you agree that amendments require interpretation?
There is nothing “like the 2nd” anywhere else in the Constitution.
I’ll answer by asking you the same about the first…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What is unclear to you?
What do you need interpreted from the 2nd Amendment?
Yes, but the interpretation is of the law, not the Constitution.
Sure there is- the first is just as direct. “No law…abridging”
The 2nd is not like the 1st. They are two different things with different wording.
What is unclear to you?
Sure- justices interpret laws to see if they are constitutional.
How come?
It’s actually “no compromise”. 
It’s weird because up until about 20 years ago, everyone including the NRA were cool with sensible gun control laws.
But today even the most miniscule regulation is seen as infringing.
No. They are different. “Abridge” and “infringe” do not mean the same thing.
“Shall not” also has a very specific meaning.
And then of course there is the whole “Congress” thing.
What is unclear to you?
Incorrect.
Whoa- so the First can be interpreted but the 2nd cannot ever. Huh- well like I said a couple hundred years of jurisprudence says different but you may find the new court agrees with you. Let’s find out.
No, it didn’t. 50 years ago I could buy a gun mail order and have it shipped to the house.
Because they are different.
