Of course they are wrong. I was just presenting an analogy.
An “Auto Pen” is like a semi-automatic rifle. If Presidents can use Auto Pens, then citizens can keep and bear semi-automatic (and even automatic) rifles.
The argument seems better presented the other way, at least on this board ... if citizens can keep-and-bear semi-automatic rifles under the 2nd, then the President can use an autopen under the signature requirement.
Your argument is better stated that way to an anti-gun, pro-autopen audience ... like Obama himself.
The point is, technology can be fit in to Constitutional language, but it should be fit in consistently. Either the language includes technological advances for both guns and signature implements ... or it includes neither. It seems strange for a group (like The Weekly Standard) so vehemently committed to the 2nd’s inclusion of higher-tech weapons to be so vehemently opposed to the signature-requirement being fulfilled by higher-tech implements.
SnakeDoc