"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?
If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.
'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?
Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?
The word "regulated", which has no semantic overlap with the modern meaning of the same word.
It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".