Flailing and failing.
My first post to you was a question.
The problem here is that you won't answer it. Because you can't.
Because the document DOES explicitly protect "sporting and historical" novelties.
Because the document DOES NOT explicitly protect firearm use for self-defense.
The latter is what the 2nd Amendment is about. The former is a fig leaf for gun-control in gun-controlled countries like Britain and Australia.
They are trying to use it here.
I read it to leave probably the most important Lockean concept in the Bill of Rights up to ambiguous interpretation while known gun-control phrases are explicitly mentioned.
You read that as probably covered.
Trust but verify.
So, just verify it. Prove that quacking waddling bird is not a duck.
#66
#66