Oh, my. "Meet the face of (Colorado's) pro-gun recall campaigns"

[jimmy the one]

21. war of 1812 no shows

excop: just like Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon with a military use. It's funny that Scalia would put that in the opinion, listing all the "normal" weapons of the military as being appropriate for the militia.

Military weapons were indeed appropriate for the militia when activated circa 1791. There were 10 to 15 thousand americans who did not report for militia duty for the war of 1812, do you contend they retained the same 2ndA rights as the near half million who did report? (they were subject to prosecution but amnesty was granted, so you say they retained the same 2ndA individual rights? as 'intended' by madison et al?).
.. Aside, what scalia 'said' in his 2008 heller ruling is the rightwing wishlist for re-interpreting the 2ndA (& miller), the nra could've written most of it (with exceptions). So what scalia 'said' is pretty much crap, & any inferences or truth to be gained from what scalia 'said' is based on the rightwing interpretation of 2ndA, which has always been ahistorical & mostly invalid. Citing an 1871 ruling may or may not resemble what the 1791 2ndA intended, since by 1871 the two trains of thought had split into the collective militia camp vs individual rkba (by 1830 actually).

english decision, 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.

Certainly, 2ndA as a militia based right it makes sense, as does applying 'bear arms'; But if you try to apply this to scalia's 'individual rkba' aberration you are mixing things up, applying the proper 'bear arms' concept to an improper grouping - citizens unconnected to militia or military. From what I've seen I don't see a problem with this paragraph. It also seems to validate several state constitutions laws (then) which prohibited carrying concealed weapons.

excop:..if the Second Amendment is antiquated, there is a way to fix it. It is known as amending the Constitution. That's the only way.

The supreme court could reverse itself & interpret 2ndA properly as a militia based rkba. The 3rdA is antiquated too, but retains it's bor meaning.
PS: I'll continue at bottom of thread, due to narrowing.