America’s Revolution Was Built on a Secret Deal

I have to admit that I've been beginning to believe this was the case. Lots of lofty language, yet very little follow through. Toss in that the French Revolution scared the crap out of the powers that be in the United States.

The real impetus for the war for independence wasn't lofty ideals: it was the British victory in la Conquête. This victory got rid of any French influence in North America, but ending up causing friction with the colonies.

Which could have been solved early on by making the colonists pay for their defence during la Conquête. 

 

Anyway, this doesn't make the War for Independence seem like such a lofty cause if all the talk of liberty was just a cover for law breaking.

Just remember that Tory means conservative. And that Canada is North America had it sought its independence through lawful means. And that doing it lawfully would have saved a lot of lives.

We shouldn't be celebrating America, we should be mourning it!

This is Rev. Mather Byles, a Boston Loyalist known for saying “Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Yes, there were Loyalists in Massachusetts.

And being a tory didn't mean they were adverse to independence, but that they preferred that it come peacefully and thoughtfully. After all, there is a British North America for those who want alternate history: it's called Canada.

The really interesting question would be what would North America be if the "French and Indian War" ("La Conquête") gone the other way?

An aside, an additional stanza sung second was previously part of the standard lyrics to "God Save the Monarch" in the UK:

O Lord our God arise
Scatter his enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

It fell out of favour with Queen Elizabeth the Second of England (First of Scotland).

But it sums up the current state of US politics very well.

And I'm sure the good reverend is smirking at the current state of affairs up in heaven as the founders look at the nation in horror.

(There's a reason I couldn't participate in a "No Kings" Rally...)

 

What they don't tell you about the War for Independence

Ever wonder why the story about the war for independence seems incomplete? I mean it goes from Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill to the ratification of the Constitution. It's pretty obvious that the film is missing a lot from the {history} book. 

That's because it IS incomplete! The war for independence was a GMFU! Someone should have pointed out that they got into the whole mess because of a war (French and Indian, Seven Years, La Conquête, Le Grand Dérangement, etc.). Starting another one is a BAD idea, but no... 

Anyway, one of those poor broke American soldiers was my ancestor (or ancestors) who was (were) in the Pennsylvania line at Morristown. They served because some rich kid bought his way out of militia service.

And remember that according to Franklin, the main reason the Albany Plan of Union proposed in 1754 was rejected was that “The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority.”

And those clowns thought they could fight a war. Them and what army?

Oh, yeah, the French, the Spanish. and having the war become a world war (look it up).

David Hogg needs to join the Green Party.

I said I am on the outs with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention" crowd lately and David Hogg's ejection from the DNC is yet another glaring example of why. I don't know what he is hoping to do, but it won't get done through the duopoly. The Dems have a habit of talking progressive, but doing nothing significant about it.

Instead, they hope to get people that they can point to and say, "They are progressive" while the rest of the party sits in the malaise that Hogg finally pointed out.

But hoping to get a solution from the parties which are the problem is going to prove fruitless: especially if you are trying to get reform by attacking their standard operating procedure. There's a reason that the primaries are pretty much meaningless.

And what has changed in regard to your pet issue? If anything, it's much easier to buy a gun now than it was when I was your age. And fully automatic weapons are more freely available along with talk of silencers being struck off the NFA list.

Just think of the carnage if the Parkland shooter had one of those!

I could get into how the duopoly uses the "hot button" issues to avoid addressing real problems. After all, I've been pointing out how meaningless Juneteenth is. After all, what is the state of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Anyway, David, we have a couple of issues in common: political change in the US, in particular election reform, and Firearms Regulation/Second Amendment. I can tell you that you are being overly optimistic if you have any hope in bringing about change within the Democratic Party/Duopoly.

And while making the switch to a third party is something I did myself: you  have to commit to getting new parties in the game, which the duopoly have hindered. But that's the only way for change to come about.

 It's the big donors, not the average person.

The Untold History of U.S. School Shootings: Before Columbine

The US constitution makes it clear that it deals with issues of the common defence, that is the military. It also does not mention personal uses, especially selkf-defence.
It's long past time when the absurdity of "gun rights" is ended.

You really think the Founders gave you "gun rights" to defend yourself or to "fight tyranny"???

Gimme a break! You need to read the constitution and TRY to understand it. But this is a good rundown. The constitution is pretty clear that it doesn't want rebellion if you really read the thing.

What don't you understand about "domestic violence"?

In the previous post, "Misinterpreting the Constitution", I mention the phrase "domestic violence", which has a drastically different meaning today from what the founders understood it to mean. While this video is fairly elementary (as in it's like my A level english course), it does make a few important points about language.
 

The major takeaway is that language of even a fairly recent time might be different from how we interpret it. And it's definitely different from what it was 240 some years ago. It's wrong to impose modern ideas on a text that old: especially if it is detrimental to modern society.

This next video gets into how when Shakespeare (Shakespear?) is heard in the original pronounciation, it makes the meaning clearer. Likewise, when the constitution is understood as a whole, it makes the meaning of the Second Amendment much more obvious that it relates to the militia, which is an institution that has changed drastically from how it was original conceived by the founders.

Another takeaway is that what people think pirates should talk like is the West Country Accent. I have to wonder if Shakepeare's English is coloured by his being from Warwickshire, which isn't exactly West Country, but it would have been signifiantly far away from London when he was alive. After all, the World's End Pub in Chelsea WAS way outside of London when it was built. Even where I live now wasn't as built up as it is now in the mid-1700s!

And people who have seen "Lost in Austen" will remember her visit to Regency period Hammersmith. I used to live in an area that was once farmland in the mid-18th Century and is now considered centre city.  But that's a lot of a digression other than life has changed quite a bit from the late 18th Century and we can't place modern ideas on texts written over 200 years ago. That probably even applies to something written 25 years ago.

Anyway, see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Misinterpreting the constitution.

 What would you say if I told you that there is a constitutional obligation of the States to address the topic of domestic violence?

It's in the Constitution at Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Of course, domestic violence in the constitutional sense isn't a battered spouse. Instead the founders knew that danger might arise from internal forces, It is the constitutional obligation of the people in the federal government to use whatever power is necessary to deal effectively with both threats. So, it is the federal government to “protect” the people from “domestic violence” as well as from “invasion.”

Yet another tenet of the gun rights crowd shot down since the constitution is pretty clear that it deals with matters of the common defence and insure domestic tranquility. Can't have armed bands running around threatening the constitutional framework. After all, Shays' Rebellion was one of the reasons for the adoption of the Constitution. 

The war for independence was a pyrrhic victory in that it left the "United States" in disarray and heavily in debt.  The founders could have just said, "fuck it, we made a mistake, let's not bother with starting a new nation."  Each state would go its own way.

But the mythology is that it was the colonists themselves threw out the British at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Nevermind that the War for Independence went on for eight more years with a lot of help from foreign powers, particularly the French. And with that myth came the belief in "god, guns, and guts" made the US great.

But the War for Independence wasn't really the start of the colonists' aspirations, the glorification of the War for Independence leaves out that it was a reaction to receiving the bill for the French and Indian War. A war that led to British Troops being stationed in the colonies. It was their presence which led to these complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

The founders understood the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment as relating to the Militia and the Common Defence, in particular the powers given to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16. I would refer you to the analog to the Second Amendment created by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution of 1775.

What got me to write this was someone did a youtube video about American's love for guns which totally misstated the facts and presented the mythology of guns in the United States. We wouldn't be in the mess we are if it hadn't been for a radical reinterpretation of the US Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment, for a fantasy version of that text.

So, if you want to ask me "what don't I understand about 'Shall not be infringed'"? I have to ask if you believe that acts of domestic violence should be addressed by the state government?

The ultimate answer is that asking what I don't understand about "shall not be infringed" removes the Second Amendment from its historic and consitutional context. One which needs to be read as a whole since Marbury v Madison said that such an interpretation is "form without substance" it makes the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction since It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

see also:

• Baron, Dennis, Corpus Linguistics, Public Meaning, and the Second Amendment, Duke Center for Firearms Law: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/corpus-linguistics-public-meaning-and-the-second-amendment
• ___.    Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment, https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/guns.pdf
• Amicus Brief NY State Rifle and Pistol Association, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193271/20210921155937883_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

 

Yet another US gun ownership myth being blown apart.

 This is a clip from "Warriors of the Dawn: Indigenous Weapons and Tactics of King Philip's War" by Atun-Shei films (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXKXoA1_gQ ).

People talk about the Pilgrims, but they neglect Jamestown's Starving time. This occurred during the winter of 1609-1610, when two-thirds of the Jamestown colonists died of starvation, disease, and Indian attacks. Any firearms they had weren't very helpful.

As this native American interpreter points out, as I have as well, firearms during this period were expensive. They aren't inexpensive now either with the low end being around $200 for a new handgun. Maybe one can buy a beat up, used one for less than that.  AR-15s start arround $450 and go up,  with something like an H&K 556 at around 3k or Knight's Armament KS-1s being around 5k.

But a modern firearm is machine made, whereas firearms in prior to the 19th century were pretty much handmade. So, think about buying something like a Purdey, Holland and Holland, and Westley Richards did make firearms for the British Military. Maybe that's why they have a thing for overpriced guns for the army.

 The US war for independence bankrupted the country. Toss in the colonists would probably have lost if they didn't get help from France, or use stolen British arms.

Why proper regulation of firearms in the US is going to be difficult

It's not that I don't support gun regulation, but it's going to be really hard given the amount of guns in the US.

 

Getting them off the streets is going to require following Australia's example of having a massive gun buyback. But imagine how much that will cost. Toss in the Aussies funded their buyback with a tax.

it also seems there are a lot of these going on as is, but there are a lot of guns out there.

How the founders understood the Second Amendment

 Is totally different from it's current interpretation, but this is something I have gone into ad nauseum.

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense 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.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776--written by Thomas Jefferson.

Pretty much all the quotations taken out of context by people who want to trash the Constitution in the name of "original intent" point to this being the concern. Far more primary source material backs me up.

For example, if one actually reads the speech where patrick Henry says "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

On the other hand, this is the actual speech:

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution (3 Elliot’s Debates 384-7)
Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.
May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by aconcurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.
The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

Note that Henry says:
To Congress is given the power of “arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” To the state legislatures is given the power of “appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

This is an exact quotation ofThe United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 16, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/.  The current interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn't do very much to stop violation of the Second Amendment by Congress's interpretation of it in the above cited article.

In fact, the founders would find current the US Military to be far more of a violation of their intent in the Second Amendment as exemplified by the Henry and Jefferson.

Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for Judicial Review.

That comes from the case of Marbury v Madison, 5 US, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). Marbury v Madison, which also deals with clauses in the Constitution:

It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

  So, the US Supreme Court has decided that the first part of the Second Amendment is "mere surplusage" despite the word that a "Militia" is "necessary to the Security of the Free State".

Then I say why not ignore the rest of Marbury v Madison since some of the complaints of the revolting colonists concerned the abolition of legislatively enacted laws by an unelected official:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The Justices would do well te remember that they are not acting under authority of the US Constitution, or US History, when they abolish gun laws using a misnterpretation of the Second Amendment.

How Israel May Lose Its Military Hegemony in the Middle East

Unlike all my other posts, this one deals specifically with the issue of the militia, which is specifically what the Second Amendment addresses:

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.

That's pretty clear and I certainly won't infringe your right to bear arms as a part of the constitutional militia, which is one set up according to Article I, Section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment only guarantees that this system should not be infringed.

Never mind reality has intervened and the United States has a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent.

And while the revisionism would have us believe that parts of the constitution are irrelevant, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), makes it clear that is not the case. And the US Supreme Court can stop acting outside its constitutional mandate if it wants to suggest otherwise since: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."   

In fact, Scalia could have cut his mental mastubation in that piece of shit decision since Marbury pretty much contradicts him, and tells him he has no business doing what he did by declaring a section of the Constitution "mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction."

Damn, Scalia was too "smart" for his own good. And an originalist in the sense that he was very original in his interpretation, which works against him.

So: yes, the founders intended to address the "common defence" of the United States of which A well regulated Militia was consider as being necessary to the security of a free State. To insist otherwise is trash the United States Constitution.

Anyway, this shows why a militia is a good idea for a defensive force, especially for a small country like Switzerland. But not a good idea if one wants to fight wars.

With that, I end with this comment by Justice Joseph Story,  (September 18, 1779 – September 10, 1845) who was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1812 to 1845. He is most remembered for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and United States v. The Amistad:

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91 (1833) § 1890. 

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. 

§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege. 

 The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 10 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html The University of Chicago Press 

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Palestinians are just exercising their Second Amendment right to fight tyranny

According to International law, an occupied nation can fight its occupier. And as the saying goes: One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I would also add that this is yet another example of how taking the Second Amendment out of the context of a "well regulated militia" is a bad idea.

As they say, you can give someone a gun, but there's no guarantee where they will point it.

UN Resolution/45/130:
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle; "

UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (December 3, 1982) specifically mentions the Palestinians, "Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the people of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security." That resolution goes on to say: "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. "

Despite the UN having allowed for the Zionist state to be created at the detriment of the Palestinian people, the change in makeup of the United Nations has led to a change in attitude toward this issue. Although, UN resolution 194 from 1948 did grant the Palestinians the right of return to the lands they were ethnically cleansed from.

So, while people might want me to condemn Hamas for its activities, which they may seem extreme: Hamas is engaging in a legitimate action to recover the land stolen from the Palestinian people. And 75 years of ethnic cleansing have only made the situation worse.

Yes, the solution is simple: Palestinians are allowed to return to their land. The truth about the ethnically pure state of Israel need to be made more widely available outside of Israel.

And people like Ben Shapiro get shown up for being the loudmouth dickheads they are for trying to justify crimes against international law. As Ben points out, there are 400 million arabs. There are also 2 billion Muslims.

Anyway, if you want to say that the Second Amendment is about fighting tyrannical governments, then you should be cheering the Palestinians.

Not the IDF.

The forgotten Second Amendment case: Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886)

This case should be brought into more prominence in the "Second Amendment Scholarship" since it is basically a refutation of the "unorganised militia" silliness.

The facts of the case are that Herman Presser was a member of the "Lehr und Wehr Verein", an Illinois corporation set up "for the purpose of improving the mental and bodily condition of its members so as to qualify them for the duties of citizens of a republic. Its members shall, therefore, obtain, in the meetings of the association, a knowledge of our laws and political economy, and shall also be instructed in military and gymnastic exercises." The company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the state, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the state, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.

Presser was then charged and convicted of violating Illinois Military code by "unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with, an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the state of Illinois, or the troops of the United States."

Presser uses the argument put forth by the people who want to say that they are somehow part of a militia because they belong to the "reserve" ("unorganised") militia, not understanding that they aren't really a constitutional militia unless their "militia" is organised under USC Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

The US Supreme Court upheld Presser's conviction and said

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect...

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

This decision's significance in the Second Amendment Jurisprudence is that it makes it clear that the Amendment relates to the forces set up under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and not individual purposes.

US v. Miller made clear that the Second Amendment has the "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (organised in accordance with USC Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Justice William O. Douglas, who was a member of the Supreme Court explained Miller in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972):

The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, “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.”

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

The problem is that Heller-McDonald gave credence to a legal theory with no basis.  The worst part of those decisions is that a bogus legal theory was been given an official sanction.

There is an upside, Heller-McDonald are very limited in their scope.  Not to mention very friendly to firearms regulation.  Since "Gun rights" are not a legitimate right, there is no reason they should not be strictly regulated.  As I said before, the Second Amendment does say well regulated.

And regulated means under rules, as Article I, Section 8, clause 14 makes clear.

It's time this case made it back into the Second Amendment jurisprudence where it belongs. It questions the "individual" nature of the right as belonging outside of the militia context.