I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.
Oh I see , so when you say there is basically no dispute you actually mean there is a dispute but you don't consider dispute to be dispute .

Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Hmmmmmm....so you attribute my post to be supporting some other interpretation ? thats interesting , would that be basically another disputed position on the 2nd .

also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.
Now that is just too funny , I wonder what the long dead people who wrote the constitutionand its amendments knew about a BAR ?
Its also funny that you consider the supreme court who rule on such things as not being serious scholars .
Whodathunk that the people whose job entails legal ruling covering the interpretation and implementation of a document hadn't put any serious scholastic study into the document they work with . I suppose they hadn't studied law either .
Obviously they are just blatant idiots who have never been serious scholars