[robertpaulsen]

"If you wish to maintain that it is acceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States to avoid its responsibility to "incorporate" the Second Amendment"

Hey, why not? YOU think it's perfectly acceptable for the USSC to incorporate the first amendment which specifically says, "Congress shall make no law ...". Fine with you that the USSC ignores the word "Congress" and makes the law applicable to the states.

"The Supreme Court allows the federal government to outlaw some bayonet lugs despite the Second Amendment"

That's not true and you know why. How can you type these things when you know they're not true, and you know that I know they're not true? Are you trying to influence the casual observer here? What, really, is your reason for doing this?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "That's not true and you know why. How can you type these things when you know they're not true, and you know that I know they're not true?"

You sound so sure of yourself.

I was under the impression that I could take a perfectly legal semi-automatic rifle and, merely by attaching a bayonet lug to it, make it into a dreaded "assault weapon". And that for doing so I would be open to felony prosecution and imprisonment. Is that not so?