The citizens of Boston were required to submit to having their personal arms housed in a government controlled armory and they were subject to search for smuggling weapons on departing the city.
You seem to be saying that, because we don't know everything about what the Second Amendment means, we then know NOTHING about what it means.
Law-abiding people in Arizona now require no government permit to carry whether open or concealed. Is there blood running in the streets?
The burden is completely on you to make the case that the right, as exercised in Arizona, is not fully protected by the Second Amendment. We are not a nation of limited rights. We are a nation of limited government.
It's a very Soviet idea to presume that everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That is not what our Founders intended. Rather they intended that whatever was not prohibited was permitted. Why do you think otherwise?
From whence comes the federal regulation infringing the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun? What clause in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control this?
What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.
As they say: “No Thanks.”