icon: I remind you once again, 'amount of verbiage' =/= 'validity of argument'...

Advice ignored; You are not the one to be offering advice to most anyone mister, above the age of 21.
(PS: heal thyself, re your shannon watts/monsanto bulloffal)

icon: Miller no more applies today than Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson do

Specious, neither dred scott nor plessy/ferg were amendments written in 1791, they were furthering developments of civil rights issues; the argument is not what scalia perverted by heller which became 'judicial' law, it's what was intended by the original 2nd amendment.

Note how most new states used 'the people' to support the militia view: not one solely had an individual rkba, they all included militia & some (2, vermont & Pennsy) had an individual and militia right:

(rightwing) Madison Brigade: Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the {US} Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitution...

VIRGINIA (Jun12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

DEL (Sept11,1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free govt.

PENNSY (Sep28, 1776) XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

MARYLAND (Nov 11, 1776) XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

NOR CAROLINA (Dec18, 1776) XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

VERMONT (July 8, 1777) XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State

MASSA (Oct25, 1780) XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784) XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.. look at New York & Rhode Island proclamations (same link) about Constitution ratification: NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 26,1788) That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION (May 29, 1790) XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

The Rhode Island preceding preface was 'That the people have the right to keep & bear arms'.
Was that therefore the 'declaratory clause' according to Scalia? so that the well reg'd militia clause following is the 'operative' clause? pls explain judicial pig scalia.

NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 7,1788) {prior to above} That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.