I think this is the weakest part of his argument: > Thus, "dangerous and unusual" weapons are historically excluded from the scope of the right [to bear arms],

I think this is the weakest part of his argument: > Thus, "dangerous and unusual" weapons are historically excluded from the scope of the right [to bear arms], but this exception, by the Court's own words, is indeed limited to weapons that are not only "unusual" but also "dangerous." Moreover, because all weapons are “dangerous” to some degree, the reference to “dangerous … weapons” must mean weapons that are more dangerous than the norm — logically meaning weapons that are unusually dangerous. I don't think that "dangerous and unusual" is the same as "unusually dangerous".