Well then, I suggest you stick with it, rather than going on about, "Do you agree with Justice Thomas' comments on substantial effects and the Commerce Clause?"
As long as Congress is using the Commerce Clause to violate the Second Amendment, Justice Thomas' comments are on topic on a RKBA thread.
Allow me to quote:
"I think that the 1968 GCA, the 1986 FOPA amendment and the 1994 AWB amendment, all violated the second amendment." -- robertpaulsen
So I'd say the use of the Commerce Clause to ban guns is relevant to the Second Amendment.
If you're going to change the subject to Justice Thomas' opinion on the awesome powers of Congress, then allow me to quote the opinion of Judge Bork on the awesome powers of the USSC.
Go right ahead, no one is stopping you.
I will continue to point out anti-RKBA writings of public persons.
And as Justice Thomas well knows, he and four unelected and unaccountable others on the USSC can frustrate and overrule 535 elected and accountable congressional representatives -- so I ask again, who shall we fear more?
I don't fear the Constitution as it is written. If you don't like what it says, amend it as prescribed in Article V.
Neither do I. But that's not what we're talking about, is it? Again, off you go on some tangent.
We're talking about the way that it's interpreted, now aren't we. Not the way it's written, correct? Why is it that I constantly have to waste half a post just to get you back on topic.
Clarence Thomas and his buddies on the USSC have done far more damage to this country than Congress. And they're unelected and unaccountable. There's the danger.