In Miller the weapon was a sawed off shotgun and the Court held that because the military didn’t issue sawed off shotguns to each infantry soldier as a normal part of their arms, that it was ok to regulate sawed off shotguns.

The implication being that since each soldier gets issued a rifle and a pistol, it was not ok to regulate those.

Then Heller held the 2nd amendment is a personal right.

So I don’t think it will be very easy for the Court to reverse Heller.

It would be a bit like the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade.

So while it is possible for the Supreme Court to reverse Heller – I consider it very unlikely.

Which is why if laws are desired to control guns, the 2nd amendment will have to be changed (in my opinion).

I don’t think that is very likely to happen.

“Justice Stevens and his colleagues were not saying, a mere seven years ago, that the gun-control legislation in dispute in Heller alone was constitutional within the confines of the Second Amendment. They were asserting that essentially every kind of legislation concerning guns in the hands of individuals was compatible with the Second Amendment—indeed, that regulating guns in individual hands was one of the purposes for which the amendment was offered.

So there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant. No new reasoning or tortured rereading is needed to reconcile the Constitution with common sense. All that is necessary for sanity to rule again, on the question of guns, is to restore the amendment to its commonly understood meaning as it was articulated by this wise Republican judge a scant few years ago.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment?intcid=mod-most-popular

“Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Then we agree.

I guess I am confused about what you found so objectionable about my point that to “fix” this we need to change the 2nd amendment.

How would you “fix” it?

“So your opinion on issues like this should be taken just as seriously as the ramblings of an engineer who dismisses evolution, or lawyers who dismiss climate change – not at all seriously.”

It is totally up to you what weight you give my personal opinion. And the fact that I am an attorney does not mean you should turn off your own brain and just agree with what I have to say.

If you choose to give it zero weight – that is up to you.

No hard feelings.

Unless you want to just ask wanta-be mass murders to just please don’t kill people – I assume people who want to “fix” this problem will do it by passing laws.

I just thought you should be aware of the problem with most of the gun control laws passed in the USA – which is that they are unconstitutional.

Many have been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and they continue to get struck down at the rate of one or two per year.

For example, the law that Heller struck down was a DC law which required the gun to be safed, locked and the ammo had to be in a different room (and I believe also locked).

Heller (who was a retired police officer) pointed out that a gun for self-defense needs to be loaded and ready to be used, to be of any use – and the Supreme Court agreed and struck down the law in DC.

Bans on possession of pistols in Chicago were struck down.

Bans on bearing guns are being struck down (the right to keep and bear arms has two parts).

Bans on guns at Federal parks are being struck down.

And so on – many many laws are getting struck down in many states.

Those are facts (sorry).

So – you tell me what law you think should be passed and I will tell you if I think it will pass muster (if you are interested in my opinion).

If you are not interested – that is ok to.

http://tinyurl.com/osysm6s
http://tinyurl.com/q7u53r7

The victims of crime are innocent and should not be disarmed (but, by policy, they were!). Families in Oregon should be armed if they desire to learn proper usage and handling of firearms for personal protection (http://tinyurl.com/o44xeo3). I’m advocating in favor of innocent victims of crime. Others are advocating disarming people who will not break the law. The results are abhorrent to all who don’t follow Darwin’s delusions.

When seconds count, the cops were 480 seconds away.

Why do we call the cops? Because we need someone to shoot back! Deny that. Go ahead and tell us we call the cops so that we can read poetry together or some such.

Go ahead.

#19 almost never does? Even the CDC disagrees with you. http://tinyurl.com/o3x9q73

“If you could magically take away all the guns in the USA ….”

No: I refuse to consider it. I have the right to own guns, and I emphatically defend and support that right for myself and every sane, competent USA citizen.

“do you think people who engage in mass shootings would just shrug their shoulders and give up on mass murder?”

Idiot.

“As I’ve said, locally the anti-vaccination folks are the largest group of science deniers, with a few who view children as property and so base opposition on ‘don’t mess with my property.'”

Since year 1985 I have worked against the child-rapist cults in southern Utah and the Arizona Strip, where old men insist they have the right to rape little girls because they are “married.” You may recall the outrage in these areas when the legal marriage age was *RAISED* to 16 years: the child advocacy groups I belonged to had tried to get the age raised to 19 years old, up from 13, and the state “compromised” to 16.

ron will now invalidate this… Go ahead, ron.

Now tell us how owning that gun protects those children from the criminal behavior of having a loaded firearm available to them in the first place. Go ahead, ron. Tell everyone how my arguments don’t work.

Be sure to write it in blood.

“A gun indeed can protect one in the face of criminal behavior”

“… but almost never does,” you forgot to add.