Gun Control Reform Activism

hansberry: No jimmy, ridiculous is denying that service in a militia is military service.

Observe above hans putting words in my mouth.

hans: Even had the second amendment been worded "the right of the militia...." the ridiculously narrow interpretation urged by jimmy the one would still find no support in the Miller decision. That court defined the militia broadly (the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense) and said when called these men would arrive bearing arms supplied by themselves (meaning they had possession of said arms before being arriving for service) and the arms would in common use at the time, and part of the ordianry military equipment.

How did you logically surmise, from what I've posted on this thread, that I support the narrow interpretation? I support it to the extent that a limited individual rkba would not have been denied by founding fathers, since guns were not a problem in communities & were still in a developmental stage at the time. The 1791 constitutional right to bear ARMS (not restricted to firearms) was militia based.
.. that men were to provide their own arms for militia was simply a pipe dream, was written in the militia act of 1792, & was what the founding fathers would liked to have seen, but it was not enforceable since less than half the militia men owned firearms (generally musket or rifle). Maybe one in 4 'white' militiamen owned a firearm, the rest (firearms) were holdovers from the revwar mainly, & stored in state armories for use when state militias drilled yearly.
Arms be in 'common use at the time' meant either a musket (~80%) or a rifle (~20) or far lesser a pistol (1 or 2%, revwar stats). These were single shot muzzle loading firearms, muskets were not that accurate, prone to misfire & unreliable in wet or damp weather. this 2ndA was a provision based upon a newly founded country using weapons in a relatively incipient stage.
It seems like you're just creating a diversion here, hans.

here hans seemingly reinforces what I wrote previously, that earlier state cases indeed supported the militia based interpretation, while simultaneously suggesting an individual rkba, often based on the ambiguity of the word 'people':
To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself.
It is true, it is somewhat difficult to draw the precise line where legislation must cease, and where the political right begins, but it is not difficult to state a case where the right of legislation (p.160)would exist. The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow, that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination. And as the manner in which they are worn, and circumstances under which they are carried, indicate to every man, the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence.

hans again (cannot argue with him on this!): The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.