Then, United States vs. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment.
The weapons that the 2nd Amendment was written about were the state of the art of their time. There were weapons at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment that would easily have been the equivalent of "sawed-off" shotguns and considered "trench sweeper"s or blunder-busters.
There are no words to overemphasize my amazement that ANYONE cannot understand that our 2nd Amendment means that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". If there is any uncertainty about it, read below:
Main Entry: infringe
Part of Speech: verb Definition: violate
Synonyms: borrow, breach, break, butt in, chisel in, contravene, crash, crib, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, muscle in, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass
I truly believe that if I wanted to have a Abrams M1 tank sitting at ready on my property - no one - government official - or not has any right to infringe upon my Constitutional right to have it.
Civilians held cannons between conflicts back in the day. The Queen Mary went back and forth from being civilian to military, too, if memory serves. I don't think the founders ever wanted us to have the military might we have today, but I agree with you that whatever the military uses, we ought to be able to own to a point. WMD excluded.
I truly believe that if I wanted to have a Abrams M1 tank sitting at ready on my property - no one - government official - or not has any right to infringe upon my Constitutional right to have it.
Sorry, but just because you believe something, does not make it so. You started out so well, analyzing the words in the 2nd Amendment - but then you let your feelings get in the way. This is the way liberalism works, not real conservatism - liberalism says that whatever I "feel" is right or just ought to be done. Conservatism says that we must analyze and decide what is actually in the law or the Constitution and then enforce that, even if it leads to outcomes we don't like (and change the law through the established methods if we don't like the outcome).
What I am referring to in your analysis is the word "arms." In the 18th Century, there were different types of weapons. "Arms" referred to the personal weapons that the typical militia member could be expected to possess, maintain and use. We now refer to this as small arms (among other things). The other term for weapons was "ordnance" (not ordinance, which is a local law). This referred to items that were typically provided by the government - cannons, explosives, ships, etc. An individual could own ordnance, but it was not expected to be that way, so it was not considered a right and was not put in the 2nd Amendment. This means that the Federal government is free to regulate ordnance, IMO.
In the modern army, ordnance would include the M-1 Abrams Tank. It would include machine guns (in the military, a machine gun belongs to the unit, while rifles and pistols are referred to as "personal weapons."), hand grenades, grenade launchers, bombs, planes, etc. In an Infantry squad, there are typically only two soldiers allowed to fire their M-16 on fully automatic, so one could easily argue that a fully automatic weapon of any kind is "ordnance." On the other hand, to argue "assault weapons" (whatever that means) are not "arms" is ridiculous - the semi-automatic variety is exactly what would have been considered "arms" under the 2nd Amendment (IMHO).
Not sure about the sawed off shotgun in Miller - I can see the point, but think this was more likely the Court trying to introduce some of it's own Constitutional interpretation. I don't know for sure, but I think the military has used and continues to use short-barreled shotguns.