What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments

[FBaggins]

38. The Heller decision goes to great lengths to discuss the history/origins of 2A

To the extent that they interpret the English predecessors... they think it's reasonable to listen to their interpretations of those sources. Though to be fair... "British scholars" in JTO's post is not the same thing as "scholars from Britain"

This is nonsense of course. There's nothing involved in being born geographically nearer to where those documents were written that means that your scholarship on the subject is better than others. Nor a reason to fall for the "appeal to authority" fallacy because 21 people claim to be scholars in the field (there are no doubt equal numbers of scholars on the other side too).

I note two points as examples:

Those on the other side of the pond claim: "in no part of his Commentaries does Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms"

Yet I find - "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.3 Which is also declared by the same statute, 1 W. and M. st. 2, c. 2, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

My second point is that the Breyer dissent in Heller agrees with the majority that one of the purposes of those who wrote 2A was so that citizens would have arms for their own self-defense. Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg joined in that dissent. So we essentially have a unanimous Supreme Court agreeing that the authors of 2A had as at least part of their intent the right of the citizen to self-defense. You are thus correct that we can safely ignore interloping Brits trying to reestablish their authority over us.