[45Auto]

Phil is completely wrong about Miller; he obviously hasn't read the very short court decision. Only the loony gun prohibition lobby forwards the Miller case as "the definitive" case for the collective rights' theory, which is a total fabrication of those who wish to destroy the Republic.

[spodefly]

He does misread Miller. You can read the U.S. v. Miller decision here.

[go star go]

it seems to me that a logical reading of the Miller decision would be that it actually ruled that we can all own M-16(s) because they do bear some resemblance to military arms... :-)

[sailor4321]

Yes, he is VERY wrong on Miller. Where on earth does he the crazy idea that our gun rights have not been "abridged". Until I was 44 years old (and long after having been trusted with automatic weapons while in the Army), I could go out and buy a new automatic weapon. Since I was 44 years old, my rights to possess automatic weapons have been abridged to include only those automatic weapons which were then legally held by civilians. That is an abridgement. Hells bells, thats an INFRINGEMENT (as in (...shall not be infringed.).

[GovernmentShrinker]

Actually, a lot of court decisions have relied on Miller, claiming it limited gun ownership rights to those arms suited to militia use, AND interpreted the 2nd Amendment as granting only a collective right. No matter that the decision says nothing of the sort, courts have been following this line for decades, and who can blame the gun-grabbers for repeating what the courts told them the law is. The scary thing is, I also keep hearing 2A rights activists referring to Miller as a case that went "against us". When our important rights are being threatened, we all need to get off our butts and actually READ the relevant court decisions.