The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms". It is not restricted to "hunting" or "sporting" weapons, but nor is it so broad as to include any and all artifacts which could conceivably by used somehow as weapons. After all, if everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon were protected, the government couldn't impose any tariffs or other restrictions on much of anything (an object could be used as a weapon, such restrictions would constitute "infringement").
The staffer who wrote the syllabus for Miller seems to have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but I see no reason why that person's opinion should bear any weight whatsoever.
Well, the USSC certainly used the first part that way, much to the surprise of the District Court I'm guessing.
"The staffer who wrote the syllabus for Miller seems to have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but I see no reason why that person's opinion should bear any weight whatsoever"
Yeah, it never got that far. The Miller court didn't say one way or the other.
The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms". It is not restricted to "hunting" or "sporting" weapons, but nor is it so broad as to include any and all artifacts which could conceivably by used somehow as weapons. After all, if everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon were protected, the government couldn't impose any tariffs or other restrictions on much of anything (an object could be used as a weapon, such restrictions would constitute "infringement").
That's a very interesting observation. Aside from the obvious, steak knives and baseball bats, suddenly I realized the absurdity of limiting the primary thrust of the 2nd amendment to just the 2nd amendment only; regards the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear _______ (fill in blank with any object) shall not be infringed.
A gun, sword, sling shot, cannon and cross bow are objects with varying degrees of technology. Objects that can be used to very destructive ends against other people and their property. This was Madison's concern that the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued to mean the government could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear any object except for guns. Hence the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Madison was right. Not even the 2nd amendment has been honored. And the politicians and bureaucrats have infringed on the right to keep and bear a long list of objects. Pretty much whatever they can get away with. Their irrational, dishonest and criminal house of cards will come crashing down.
Here's how:
Keep in mind, or, for your edification, technology advances exponentially. See the Law of Accelerating Returns, by Ray Kurzweil. For 2300 years government and religious leaders have adapted the technologies of their day, dogma and propaganda being mainstays. So have the freedom fighters used the technologies to fend off their advances. Because technology advances based on facts and the laws of nature/physics it can advance exponentially. Dogma and propaganda cannot advance much into and not beyond the knee curve of the technology curve. That's where the state of technology is at now. Irrationality, which dogma and propaganda are products of becomes increasingly random and disconnected from the facts and laws of physics.
Irrationality itself becomes decreasingly effective and ever easier to out compete. Until it has virtually no effect on the trajectory of civilization.
Civilization then will look back upon today as an anti-civilization. Where irrationality, human death and destruction had major influence on the trajectory of human lives and societies.