But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model". I do not believe in the "collective rights model".
In Miller, why did the USSC question the weapons relationship to a militia? If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Let's say the Miller case came back to the USSC with the finding that this weapon was indeed used by militia. What do you think the USSC would have said? Do you think that the USSC would have allowed this militia weapon to be owned and used by an individual outside the confines of a well regulated militia? (ie., for personal use?)
And what makes you think that?
Machine guns were owned and are owned by civilians today, now, in the thousands. The prohibition against new manufacture for civilian purchase is a recent invention of an anti-gun Congress.
You speak, as many anti-gunners do, as if the ability to prolong the automatic firing of a rifle is some magic wand that transforms it suddently into a killing machine so deadly that only a standing army may possess it.
Two bank robbers used fully automatic AK-47s to rob a bank in L.A. Fifteen officers, I believe, were wounded. None died. Both robbers were shot dead.
The woundings would have been much reduced if the police had been armed with rifles, regardless of whether they were automatic or not. The robbers were wearing body armor and a well-aimed head shot was needed to stop them.
The response of L.A. was to equip every sergeant's patrol car with a fully automatic M-16. Someday, this episode will be repeated and the city will discover, as the military already knows, that one well-aimed shot from a more powerful rifle is the proper tool, and not automatic fire.
The laws which you seem to think deny machine-guns to the unorganized militia are ineffective at removing them from the grasp of criminals. The law-abiding find themselves forced to pay thousands for a rifle which costs only hundreds to manufacture.
Because the Court was obviously trying to establish that such weapons are NOT needed for the security of a free republic. Get real paulsen, - you know this.
If the second amendment guarantees an individual RKBA (as you say), then why is the type of arms important to the USSC? And why must those arms be related to a militia?
Our RKBA's is an individual right, and in 'Miller' the Court was trying to defend the 1934 NFA that unconstitutionally infringed on our RKBA's.
Don't pretend you're too dense to see that point paulsen. Its dishonest.
Let's be honest here. If that were the criteria, then the right to keep and bear machine guns must be allowed -- they are certainly used by a well regulated militia in modern times.
Exactly. -- You've just made our point, and admitted that you understand why the USSC was being dishonest in Miller.
The whole idea of the '34 Act was to prohibit 'gangster type' weapons.