Lying By Omission Is Still Lying

Watch this:



I started to comment before I'd watched the whole thing...

From 1939 to 2008 there are exactly zero decisions by the Supreme Court on the second amendment. The 1939 ruling, which is misread constantly, stated that since a sawed off shotgun couldn't be considered militarily useful, it wasn't protected by the 2nd amendment; then sent it back to the lower court where the defendant had disappeared... without someone to appear in court the ruling just kind of sits unresolved. 

Prior to US v Miller the interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court is exactly the same interpretation that you're saying the NRA says it was. See US v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois. While you're claiming that 2008 is some sort of new outlier in rulings, the absolutist NRA position is known as "the standard model" by Constitutional scholars, even the anti-gun ones.
The 2008 DC v Heller and 2010 McDonald v Chicago are not in conflict with the pre-1939 rulings but rather reaffirm them. 

Your 200 years of "saying the opposite" is patently false. Four out of the five times the 2nd amendment has been before the court it has affirmed an individual right to gun ownership and possession. And the third time, which is often cited as a gun-control victory, essentially says the right is restricted strictly to militarily useful guns. 

Were it not for the 14th amendment, you could argue that the States and localities could restrict gun ownership, and this is the real meat of the McDonald decision.

But then I watched more than the opening statement.

I think that if I quoted Adolph Hitler as selectively as this guy cherry picks his points in history I could prove that Hitler loved Jews.

It's so very frustrating because while nothing is exactly a lie, the truths are strung together inaccurately to make a lie.