What I did was point out your question-begging and erroneous, dishonest interpretation of the 2A. And yes, indeed, you did beg the question. Which is related entirely to the way you choose to argue in this thread.
If you don't want to have your weaknesses pointed out, there are plenty of sites where you can post and everyone will agree with you in lock step. This isn't one.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. I called no "names." What I have said is 100% about what you posted. The one who's "acting like a child" is the one who is protesting way, way, way too much. (That's you.)It's clear you are not interested in any reasonable or rational discussion. The sad thing is you're obviously more intelligent than MMC, and yet you'd rather act in such a silly manner, using childish insults which have been clearly proven untrue. Instead of wasting everyone's time acting like a child, how about you actually engage in the thread discussion? It seems far more productive than the two of us accusing each other of being dishonest. After all, while I am new here, the rules have made me believe this forum is more about mature debate and not about childish name-calling.
Your interpretation is wrong in every way it can be wrong. This is a matter of historical, linguistic, and legal fact.So let's try this again. I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many others do as well.
It doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment, nor do I care. What I cared about was your dishonestly-worded question. Which is the only thing I commented on, your dishonest attributions to me notwithstanding.But whether we use your interpretation or my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the question I originally asked, which is how the lawsuit in question is in violation of either interpretation. Now, do you have any opinions on that matter?