Your interpretation is idiosyncratic and hardly consistent with
the Court's decisions over time. The Court, far from finding that
the national government is prohibited from imposing any limitation,
has interpreted the amendment specifically to refer to militia
participation--hence, the opinion in Miller, to which i have frequently referred.
The Miller decision addressed itself
to the possession of a mutilated
referred to by the USSC as "an instrument." The 2nd Amendment
defends a citizen's right to possession of weapons that are suitable,
useful to a militia, NOT USELESS JUNK
. As a point of evidence,
the trial court in MILLER
had taken judicial notice, with no proof
that this "instrument" was a weapon. ONLY
possession of WEAPONS
, not trash, is protected by the 2 A.
The case was remanded for additional evidence to be taken, as I remember.
Defendants defaulted and were never heard from again
after thay won in the trial court.
As for Heller, as i have repeatedly pointed out,
this Court has struck out on new ground with that opinion,
especially the contention about a right of personal self defense.
I must deny
this; your assertion is inconsistent with historical fact.
Upon request, I will be happy to set forth the earlier judicial
point of vu, supported by both respected judges, much closer in time
to the founding of the Bill of Rights, as well as very respected
legal authority both then and now.
I have already set forth some of it to you, Setanta,
which u have made no effort to refute.