Believe me, I meant no insult, no matter what the tone. I'm just quite discouraged at this opinion and the general drift to socialism in this country.
I find that you have a point - see last para page 52, first para 53.
Which point? And which page(s), the page number of/on the opinion itself or the page number assigned by the .pdf file reader? They don't coincide.
The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms in common use at the time for lawful
purposes like self-defense. In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same. State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 615, 252254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendments operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25