Right. But ‘silly’ is an opinion, not an argument. Also it does not matter for Lowery to be right or wrong whether you are a 2A absolutist or not.

Anyways, the matter seems semantic and legal, and refers to the interpretation of the word ‘Arms’ in the phase ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Lowery seems to propose a broad interpretation which extends to any devices projecting power that may be used for protection of property.

It is in fact a legal question. I do not hold a strong opinion on this matter at the moment, but I would be interested in hearing an opinion from an expert on the US constitutional law.