[Mojave]

This is why we're all supposed to have M-16s.

Hey, maybe you can write Scalia and share your crackpot theory with him. I hear he's got a sense of humor.

[publiusF27]

Actually, Scalia did address M-16 ownership directly, and I thought what he said was really lame, in an otherwise good opinion.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

That's my objection exactly. He goes on:

...the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

"Modern developments" such as the (unconstitutional, IMO) ban on post 1986 machine guns, which I hope to see challenged in court soon.