“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”
Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.
It is not. It is the interpretation right wing gunnits have claimed it is, so there is that I suppose…
They are free to interpret it this way just as you are your way.
It would be weird for a new polity, result of a winning rebellion against lawful government, and definitely against its laws (some people think one can rebel not breaking any laws, apparently, claiming there are legal and illegal rebellions), to not have this in mind frankly.
And from the context of the second amendment we know that back then it was interpreted exactly as a militia that can fight against federal military.
One can argue in theory that this doesn’t mean individual gun rights, just that states should have their own armies (national guard). One can’t argue that it’s not intended for rebellion, because it very openly was.