[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "The heart of the matter. You are correct, it shouldn't.
In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning."

You have gone absolutely full circle in your "reasoning".

One minute you claim that the mandate should not be limited by an explanatory clause. The next minute you are suggesting that the Supreme Court in Miller was correct in inventing a power of courts to rule on the suitability of arms.

I pointed out above the nonsense of Miller by asking how it is possible for the militia to demonstrate the usefulness of a weapon if the courts have outlawed its manufacture, ownership, possession, transfer, or use.

[robertpaulsen]

There are facts. There are opinions.

I know you confuse the two when you post. I don't.