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

[jimmy the one]

22. 1939 miller was 8-0 unanimous

excop: Once you start banning legitimate books, you start on a slippery slope. There have been thousands of regimes that have banned books--but none that were free.

That's immaterial & overreach to my point, that there are book bans I'd support, whether deemed 'legal' or not. You first asked whether a civil rights supporter would support book bans, alluding to gun bans. I'd also support banning books crafted for illicit purpose with razors inside or bombs.
(how stuff works website):.. US Supreme Court ruled that a book or periodical must be "pervasively vulgar" to constitute adequate ground for banning.. SC ruled that school officials could censor student journalists. 1988 Hazelwood School Distr v. Kuhlmeier differentiated between the rights of public school students and those of adults, stating that the school newspaper was not a form of public expression. The Hazelwood decision has granted school officials added leeway for censoring classroom curriculum as well.

excop: Registering militia is much different from registering their rifle, which was not done in 1791.

It was known whether the militia member had a firearm, due to militia returns. In 1803 dearborn, under jefferson, performed a firearms census which showed that only 45% of militia members had access to a firearm, half of those armed by state armories, so only about 25% of militia eligible males had a personl firearm. Musquettes outnumbered rifles by 4 to 1 ~revwar end.

excop: I actually do believe that the NFA is unconstitutional, based on this statement by the Supreme Court (citing) Miller(1939)... Even the Heller decision was ambiguous in this regard, but subtly so.

What was so ambiguous about this ruling by the 1939 miller court?: 1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of {2ndA} were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In the vernacular of the 1939 day this (& the passage you cited) was considered proof which negated the individual rkba interpretation. The individual rkba developed as a result of far rightwing tampering in the latter 20th century, & fabricating a ruse to get around the miller decision, which you are reiterating.
The miller decision was unanimous 8-0 (one newly appt'd justice did not participate). If the 1939 supreme court had felt 2ndA conferred an individual rkba, wouldn't at least one justice have OBJECTED to the above wording, feeling 'future generations might think we're ruling for a militia based 2ndA interpretation'?.. wouldn't at least one of them have agreed with scalia's abberation that the 2ndA right was 'disconnected from militia service' rather than being dependent upon militia service?.. yet not one single justice objected to the above wordings, neither did the 9th later after having sat in on the case.
The heller decision was split 5-4, the 4 liberal justices ruling for the proper militia interpretation.