First, this is your well documented historical fact that requires no support or elaboration? It's my job to do research understand this?

"if you're a single-issue moar guns no matter what voter, then fine. But that is not what the second amendment says or was understood to say by those who ratified of US Constitution. To say otherwise is false"

That "fact" required support, if for no other reason, so I could understand your actual point.

Second, did you read the ~10,000 word opinion piece you linked? He outlines what, presumably, he views as a complete-enough history of gun legislation in the US. Then he presents his interpretation of those historical events. He mentions the militia but I didn't see him define it, nor does he attempt to define "well regulated". I didn't see any mention of the federalist papers. This is an incomplete examination of the 2A's creation. Lastly, he doesn't appear to attempt to draw any grand conclusion other than: gun laws evolve.

I'm still wondering: what's your well-documented historical fact? That the 2nd amendment allows for some infringements on the individual right to bear arms? That it doesn't protect individual gun rights at all? That it's intent was to ensure local militias and prevent a standing federal army and it's already been trampled to death?

What about the Texas State constitution? Is it less ambiguous? "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the state; but the legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime"

Lastly, it's unfair to compare abbot to Paxton. What crime has or will abbot be indicted for?

Beto wants to ban "assault rifles" ... Which when you boil it down becomes all semi-automatic firearms. Relatively ancient technology and there are half a billion of them here.

Banning things people have come to understand as rights does not work. Alcohol, abortion, guns, even drugs. Ban it and you'll create a thriving black market.