An originalist reading of the Constitution would agree with you because women weren't armed aside from guns their husbands gave them. Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written, that's how much more important gun ownership is.
Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written
That's not at all true. Voting wasn't universal even for men back then. Still isn't universal for men technically. But back then, voting rights were tied and dependent on land ownership. This meant that women who owned land, which there were some (admittedly overwhelmingly widowers), were allowed to vote.
This same rule applied to men until it later changed, and in the US, men still don't have universal suffrage, as their vote is tied to signing their body away to the Selective Service (AKA the draft), which is also tied to a bunch of other things like their Social Security Number and all else that entails a person to.
Unless you own land, an originalist reading of the Constitution would probably strip you of your voting rights as well.
An originalist reading of the Constitution would agree with you because women weren't armed aside from guns their husbands gave them. Women also couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written, that's how much more important gun ownership is.
That's not at all true. Voting wasn't universal even for men back then. Still isn't universal for men technically. But back then, voting rights were tied and dependent on land ownership. This meant that women who owned land, which there were some (admittedly overwhelmingly widowers), were allowed to vote.
This same rule applied to men until it later changed, and in the US, men still don't have universal suffrage, as their vote is tied to signing their body away to the Selective Service (AKA the draft), which is also tied to a bunch of other things like their Social Security Number and all else that entails a person to.
Unless you own land, an originalist reading of the Constitution would probably strip you of your voting rights as well.