Excluding the recent 5th Circuit ruling in Emerson, find for me one second amendment ruling where any court did not tie the RKBA to a militia.
My claim stands. You still can't tell the difference between fact and opinion, huh?
Your unsubstantiated "claim", if that's what it was, was that my claim, that the Second Amendment differed in no distinctive way from the First and thus is incorporated by virtue of the Fourteenth, is untrue.
How do you ask that your "claim" stand when you failed to provide the distinction which such a "claim" would require for justification?
When your opinions are shown to be baseless and self-contradictory, you trot out the many anti-gun decisions which suffer the same lack of logic.
Then you accuse others of mixing opinion and fact.
The FACT that the courts have allowed infringements of the Second Amendment is challenged by nobody on this thread. What is challenged is the nonsense that passes for justification.
You have agreed to the fact that the Miller decision was flawed and that the grammar of the Second Amendment does not justify their constraint of the right by the dependent clause.
When challenged to justify the non-incorporation of the Second Amendment by virtue of the Fourteenth, you have provided NOTHING. Erroneous court decisions are not justifications. If you wish to use the arguments of such erroneous court cases, then you must adopt their "reasoning" no matter how shallow and illogical or provide reasoning of your own.
Otherwise, it will be you once again who confuses opinion with fact.