From the brief:
“Given the unequestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding as illustrated by the exsisting Federal laws regulating firearms.”
Note it doesn’t say, tanks, nuclear arms, battleships. It says firearms. The next paragraph goes on to say to the effect that if the court categorically says handguns are “Arms” under the 2A then ANYTHING could be “Arms”. Later on the gov’t misuses the framer’s intent of “well-regulated”, something that’s been pretty much proven.
The brief also says:
“Congress has substantial authority to ban the private possession of firearms by persons whom congress deems unfit to keep such weapons.”
The brief also uses tortured logic with respects to trigger locks, etc. In short, the brief is trying desperately to protect the status quo.
I’ve read pretty much the whole thing and yes, it’s as bad as the doom-and-gloomers say. Bush could have done far worse, but supposedly for a 2nd Amendment supporter, he could have done far better.
I might agree with you with a second reading.
A better tact to defend the 2nd amendment is reason, not appeals to a static document. Kind of like saying not to be an adulterer because the Bible says so, without going into detail about what the real world consequencies of adultery are.