You're wrong here. I was commenting on your short post and the short post of another user that made nearly exactly the same comment within a pretty short time period.

This is you.

'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'

Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

This is the other guy.

"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

Looks like a bullshit example that makes an apples to steam engines comparison employed by two posters shilling for the same reason - support of a conclusion they both believe in.

You don't know me. You will never know me.

You totally misunderstood that I was pointing out that your bullshit example looks a lot like a poorly formed drunk asshole's talking point that some illiterati group has contrived to be used on uninformed, semi-literate readers every time they find someone challenging something about the second amendment.

You did a better job with your other post laying out all those quotes from contemporaries who were actively involved in deriving the final language of the amendment. I do think that you could have improved that by adding context, like the other side of the conversation, for example. It isn't unusual though for people to cherry-pick anything that fits their desired conclusion so I am not surprised.