And the entire thread is discussion of the posted article which explicitly set out that premise.
"We’re already subject to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A, unless we live in the DC District or the 5th Circuit. That means that the 2A does exactly nothing for an individual like me. How is that going to get worse?"
False. I'm calling your bluff. Prove that all state laws subject us to a "collectivist interpretation of the 2A", whatever that nebulous phrase might mean.
This is beginning to remind me of our long and fruitless discussion about the words “in light of” regarding the then-pending revised decision in the Stewart case.
Why should I prove something I never asserted and don’t believe?
How about this? All federal court districts except the 5th and the DC Circuit subject us to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A. The Brady Bunch wants to see it go back to being ALL federal court districts, period. Is that what you want as well?