Why do you recomend "move" rather than "kill the tyrants"? The tyranny will soon flow to Nevada.
Let's look at Miller, again.
If we ask ourselves, what single mandate did the Founders include in the Constitution to ensure the effectiveness of the well-regulated militia that was necessary to the security of a free state? They chose "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
What is it that lower courts have allowed, citing Miller as justification? Infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. They have granted themselves a power which the mandate in the Second Amendment denies them.
You seem to realize that a machine-gun can hardly be deemed unessential to a well-regulated Militia. The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited.
The consequences of Miller are predictable and unConstitutional. You see the results, infringements of the right to keep and bear some arms, yet you fail to admit that Miller was in error in granting the courts the power to make distinctions not allowed under the Second Amendment.
You have stated that if the Second Amendment merely stated, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", then such infringements would be unConstitutional. You read the dependent clause as changing the mandate.
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed".
Now, given the above, which types of books can be prohibited and who has the power to decide?
A "Miller" interpretation of the above mandate would result in the courts deciding whether any given book contributes to education and whether, despite that, the book might educate people to something which the court deems harmful to the electorate. No such power is granted to the courts by the mandate.
You're right. The courts have no power to keep books from felons and criminals. The insane. 8-year -olds. Great analogy. It's real clear now.
My point is that it's significant that the 1937 USSC was interested in the relationship of a weapon to the militia, in this case a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length".
Don't you ever ask why? Could it be (gasp!) that the 1937 USSC saw a direct relationship in the second amendment between the RKBA and a state's militia? And that they were trying to determine if Mr. Miller's weapon qualified as a suitable militia weapon -- one which is protected by the second amendment?
"The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited."
That the courts shall be judge of what is suitable is in error? BWAHAHAHAHA! That's their function, for crying out loud.
Who determined that nude dancing was protected speech but that political advertisements within 30 days of an election were not? Who determined that the ten commandments was "establishing religion"? Who determined that a right to privacy allowed a woman to kill her baby -- but if someone else did it was murder? Who determined that feeling a container was not an unreasonable search?
Ah, but they're not allowed to determine what constitutes a militia arm, huh? You kinda lose your rationality and objectivity when it comes to the RKBA, don't you? You want the courts to treat the second amendment differently, don't you?
The USSC could have simply said that the 1934 NFA was constitutional in that the second amendment does not protect an individual RKBA. OR, they could have agreed with the lower court and said that the 1934 NFA was unconstitutional because the second amendment proteced an individual RKBA.
But they didn't. They questioned the weapons relation to a militia. You refuse to see this as significant. Fine.