07-11-2018, 01:23 AM
grayfox Wrote:I'm not quite ready to say that for me although I see why one could say it, my point was mainly that a) it is a defense against activist re-definitions to prohibit that which has been allowed and common for years (which the left is fond of doing) ... and b) I think K's point was not to make new points, rather to show the logical extension of the existing, SCOTUS one. O, and c) it probably has the weight of historical precedent as well, but I'm not well-versed on chapter-and-verse if that's true.Concur on points b and c, but not point a. "Common use" is itself a re-definition of what is covered by the 2nd Amendment.