You lying little asshole.
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Pathetic? Conversing with you is a lot like removing the cowflop from the bottom of my boots.
The conclusion is inescapable? You believe that? Why, because it says so?
If it were indeed inescapable, people wouldn't be arguing about it, now would they? It's an opinion, jerkoff.
Second, and most important, you quote, "as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification".
Interpretation by every major commentator? Ooh, I'm so impressed.
Interpretation by every court in the first half century? What is that, two state cases? One in 1822 and one in 1833? Puhleeze.