Perhaps, but irrelevant unless you use interpretation and implication in construing the 2nd Amendment. A strict comstructionist could NOT see it this way.It is pointless to have arms if you cannot use them.
As I have been saying, where, what, how, and why can be regulated since the firing is not a Constitutional right. There are many ways to skin a cat. This is just one.Also, while you are talking of regulation in the broader sense of the exercise of the right, specifically what I was responding to was someone who claimed that the very act of firing the gun itself was regulated. But that's not true, there are definitely situations in which you fire your gun and face no repercussions for doing so. That shows that it is not merely the act of firing your gun which is regulated. But rather there are many factors including why you fired your gun, what you were firing your gun at, and where you were firing your gun that comes into play with these laws.
Except the argument is not foolish. I haven't seen anything that demonstrates it is inaccurate. In fact, most of you are supporting my argument, yet dismissing it at the same time. Weird.And again, I didn't say you had to be anyone's fool, you can be an independent fool if you wish.