They do? I supposed that I was supposed to assume that from the usage of quotations around "admin"?

Have you messaged the admin that deleted them?

I understand that you don't think it is necessary, but I'm curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government.

You raise a good point about the 14th Amendment. I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation as it would violates the 2nd Amendment, which, in turn, violates the 14th Amendment.

Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms.

While I do agree that paying attention to the exact terminology used is crucial to the Amendment's interpretation, from what I can see, the definition that you stated is not without contention.

It doesn't have to be referenced on the site that uses it?

Still, I would be very hesitant to make such a claim.

What I like about the free-ish markets

Pehaps, you may benefit from the term "competitive free market".

free market would punish bad actors

The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

The question would then become: "Whose morals are truly virtuous?".

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term "capitalism"? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement

Would you mind defining "impossible to perfectly implement"? I don't want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.

I don't understand what you are objecting to in my interperetation, then. You are confirming that my interperetation of your statement is correct.

The 2nd Ammendment doesn't specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one's rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.