Is ignorance by omission any less ignorant; ignorance abounds.
It may be worth noting that in U. S. vs. Miller the federal trial court held that the National Firearms Act of 1934 violated the defendants’ Second Amendment rights. After Miller and Layton’s victory in the trial court, defendant Miller was murdered and defendant Layton disappeared.
Thus, when the U. S. government appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, no written or oral arguments on behalf of the defendants were presented to the Supreme Court.
Gun prohibitionists often cite this case for the proposition that the court held that the Second Amendment only protected the right of the states’ National Guard to have government issued arms (i.e., the “Collective Rights” theory). This is not true, in fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the militia, and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia-type arms.
The Miller court decided the following:
1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.
2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."
3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
Thus, the case stands for the proposition that the people, as individuals had the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms that could be appropriate for militia-type use.
The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that in order for the state to be able to form a well-regulated militia the citizens must have the individual right to gun ownership.
Obliviously, those bent on tyranny for our nation would want to twist these words to suit their agenda. In a time when four of the nine Supreme Court Justices are willing to ignore the Constitution it is serves us well to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.”
I'd suggest that is very good advice.
Again, since the libs need to really stretch on this one, why not take the legal way out and push for repeal of the second amendment?
Why...because they don't have the votes. So they need to sneak it in. Some day, some Supreme Court will be all left and the libs will have a field day that will make Roosevelt's court look conservative. We the people, need to have a Constitutional convention absent the collectivists and make everything crystal clear.
The libs cannot operate under the current Constitution.