Yes it is.
It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A.
You can't possibly make an informed opinion on what and how a clause was intended to mean and be used without understanding the terms used in the text of the clause itself.
So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don’t have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I’s are none of the feds business.
That is not so if there is an amendment which says otherwise.
You and Thomas want to ratify the “fundamental” rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A.
How do you know what the ratifiers thought? Bork says it was 'less clear' and there was 'no evidence' the ratifiers agreed with the drafters.
Presumably, the ratifiers read the senate debates and knew the intent of the drafters. Given that they still voted to ratify, the burden is on you to show that they disagreed with the drafters on what the Clause meant.
You miss the point. You can understand the meaning of a particular term is still not know or understand the intention of it's use in a given clause.
Generally your argument is weak. You don't address the amount of evidence against an intended constitutional revolution you seem to wish for. Why do you wish for it?
Besides the point and the weight of evidence against your theory, I'm puzzled why someone here on FR who is supposedly a conservative is in favor of unlimited federal power to regulate the states. The enemy of gun possession or any of your freedoms and rights is not the states, it is the feds. Why do you want expansive federal power that has proven to be the greatest threat to our way of life. It's not only constitutionally invalid, it is degenerative to our healthy and free society.