Correct. His opinion was incoherent and ahistorical. That's not me speaking for the founders.
One might approach this position from a few vantage points. Let's say there aren't enough data to know what the founders would think of the 2nd amendment application today. A few problems. Would all of the founders agree? But also, if we don't have enough data, confidently asserting they would opine that the use of 2nd amendment as argued by NRA types today is wrong would be similar to making the assertion that there's a teapot floating around in space. It's not falsifiable. Thus, you'd be wrong for making the assertion that there's a teapot floating around in space (unless you launched one, but that wasn't possible when Bertrand made the argument). This is the same error all religions asserting a supernatural force make. Using metaphysically subjective arguments to assert claims on objective reality. Worse though, Brian tries to defend his assertion by stating that the founders weren't conversative, they were rebels. Aside from the fact he didn't operationally define his terms, this argument seems to suffer from incoherence. At best, it is a non sequitur. He made a subjective assertion and then defended it with irrelevant, poorly defined material. I.e., Brian was wrong.
Relative to the supreme court when they're faced with ambiguity in the law, the argument construction may be debatable but it's typically coherent. I.e., the disagreement should make sense. Brian's argument does not make sense. Conclusion, Brian is not good at arguing. Confirmation bias. It figures, because Brian's political opinions tend to be terrible.
