Antique guns and hunting rifles and pistols and guns use solely for target shooting.
Not being an expert I won't answer gun lore questions

they talked about "A well regulated militia...".

Eom

..."state-of-the-art military arms."

You should be using

These were: https://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+long+rifle+for+sale&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=923&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizssO0zt7JAhWysoMKHZWvANIQsAQIQQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

In the right hands they are capable of hitting man sized targets at 300 yards.

...of the militia uses them now.

are those printed on broadsheets or in books and letters, or spoken only within the range of the speaker's voice.

Dumb shit analogies abound, don't they.

specific to the need for having a well regulated Militia. Since we have long passed that stage with national armed forces in place of citizen militias its relevance has also passed.

in 2016 and a shift in the Supreme Court shortly thereafter Heller will be reversed and the correct understanding that the 2A never was meant to create an individual right to own firearms will be reinstated.

You'll have noticed that they haven't reversed either, when they've had the chance?

Regardless of the make up of SCOTUS, they rarely revisit a decision and reverse it. Certainly not in their own or your lifetimes.

But I absolutely understand why gun control supporters support that idea.

No real work for them and they tend to be not terribly involved beyond online Poutrage. They don't really ever reach for their checkbooks, or spend their vacation time meeting with legislators and lobbying for what they "believe in". No grass roots movement, no infrastructure, even after 20 years and $50 million of racist pig Bloomberg's money to back them.

By hoping for a SCOTUS reversal they don't have to do any of the heavy lifting and can always hope for the best and still have something to whine about when it doesn't come to pass.

And if all else fails, just keep blaming that evil/wicked/reich wing NRA instead of having a piss poor, ineffective excuse for a "movement".

is settled law. In fact, it's hanging on a by a thread right now. By the same token, there is a new and serious challenge to the ACA working its way up to the Supremes right now which looks like it could do real damage. Hard to tell if Roberts is willing to take all the heat a second time - my guess is that he is not. And you are also completely mischaracterizing my opinion. My objection is not based on any devotion to 'gun control' or to 'no gun control', but is rather on my professional opinion that Heller was a fundamentally flawed decision.

Both have stated that there is an individual right to bear arms, without regard to militia service.

At least that's what the 2012 platform says.

from sticking their fingers in the wind at election time than anyone else so I don't place a whole lot of credence on the durability of those 'opinions'. In any event, it's not up to party platforms or even the President. The whole thing will, just as in other contentious issues, will be decided by the Supreme Court. And it's my belief that Heller is one of the bad decisions this court has taken that may well be changed (if not outright reversed) by a future court.

...speak.

Do you honestly believe that you can make bans stick in red states?

But is plainly stated in the Dissent that in a 9-0 vote, ALL the Justices believe that the 2nd Amendment is an Individual right. I would tend to believe Marbury vs. Madison will be overturned first, given recent and current executive overreach!

it is an individual right only insofar as it relates to having and keeping arms for military (i.e. militia) purposes. A 5-4 decision with two dissents - fertile ground for changes to it in the future. BTW do you really believe that the President is "overreaching"?

Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. Ronald Reagan with his PATCO strikebreaking, Bill Clinton with the excessive use of recess appointments, George W. Bush on NSA spying and executive orders, and Barak Obama with the recess appointments and also executive orders.

The Constitution sets out the checks and balances of our government. As originally envisaged, the Legislative Branch was the strongest of the 3 branches, now it is the Executive. If we want the Executive to have more power, we need to pass laws to that effect, and not through power grabbing efforts of the Chief Executive.

On Page 1 of his dissent, Justice Stevens states:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (emphasis added)
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,J., dissenting).

big mike: Both Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer explicitly state that it is an individual right

No they don't, you post baloney from 2nd amendment mythology.

big mike: While in Section II, essentially on Page 3 of his dissent, Justice Breyer states:
In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (emphasis added)
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. (STEVENS,J., dissenting).

To try to hoodwink readers that heller was 9-0 for an individual rkba interpretation demonstrates either a deceptive nature, or your misconception of what was actually written.
Big mike cites simply ONE of the 4 interpretations of 2ndA which exist today & noted by breyer, then misleads by leaving off the other 3 considerations, thus misleading that breyer was actually an individual rkba adherent:

Justice breyer in fuller context shows big mike for a charlatan: In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(Proposition) (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of forces.” United States v. Miller,(1939);
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller..
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).

Yes, those are the 4 possible constructions & rulings today which 2ndA has morphed into. Note how big mike only mentioned proposition 1 which is individual rkba friendly.
But Breyer was NOT contending he, nor the 'entire court' of 9 justices, considered 2ndA an individual right.
Justice Breyer, in proposition 1 above, was simply noting that the 2ndA when considered AS an individual right was ONE of the several 2ndA interpretations which exist.
Two other propositions breyer noted (2 & 3), described that the collective/militia interpretation also existed. These 4 propositions are what justice breyer meant when he said 'all justices could agree with' existed, and thus formed the basis for further debate.
In proposition 1, breyer was simply defining what the individual right was, note his usage of i.e. which means roughly 'in example': The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred; - this then became the basis for court discussion whether the 2ndA did indeed confer an individual right. But breyer was not contending propostion 1 was what the dissent adhered to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=117174

what I read in black and white. But when I see two statements, neither of which are in the subjunctive tense, state the same position, I interpret that to mean that the authors mean exactly what they say.

As far as paras 2, 3, & 4, those paragraphs were superfluous, at least in my eyes, to the individual right argument.

But understandably, given the gun violence that has convulsed the country in recent days and weeks, much more is being said than that, much of it imputing a rationale to the seven justices who had, in fact, remained silent. “Have the justices gone gun-shy?” was the irresistible headline in The Atlantic. “Finally, Some Sanity!” proclaimed The Daily News in New York.


Linda Greenhouse
The Supreme Court and the law.
Sex After 50 at the Supreme Court
Judicial Energy and the Supreme Court
Church, State, and the Supreme Court’s Moment of Truth
Abortion at the Supreme Court’s Door
A Chief Justice Without a Friend
See More »

Implicit in a good deal of the commentary is the hope that one or more of the justices who signed on to Justice Scalia’s strained reading of history seven years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller are reacting to the country’s bullet-ridden landscape by showing symptoms of buyer’s remorse. Heller was the 2008 decision that for the first time interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms,” specifically to keep a handgun at home. In addition to Justice Thomas, the others in Justice Scalia’s 5-to-4 majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/guns-and-thunder-on-the-supreme-courts-right.html?

Where do people get the stupid idea that everything was supposed to freeze in place after the paper work was signed?


Do the framers not want news transmitted over the Air?


Would they expect a citizen milita to go up against invading Army's with AK 47's?


Would you be happy trying to put down a rebellion with flintlocks?

WTFF.

only surpassed by their sophistication.

They said "yup, nothing will ever be invented ever again".

They realized there would be changes. They knew they could not anticipate every possible change, so they included a way to repeal and change the constitution.

Also, the first 20 round magazine existed about 10 years before the bill of rights. It was used by lewis and clark a few years later.

If you dont like the second amendment, go gather some petitions and start work on getting it repealed.

...moved beyond these types of arms?

Front flintlocks to 1858 Army Revolver replicas, it's all great fun.

they saw service back in the day.