He gave the SG an A+ because he did his job. Remember, he works for the government so his duty is to look out for the government. What? You say the government is supposed to be looking out for the people? The people? Who?

Post 17, I have a lot of issues here. I notice that the further away from reality one is, the more technical they attempt to parlay their position!:
“Stare Decisis”? OK, look at past decisions and their justifications, yes, but rely on them? No. If that were the case then you, my dear, would not have the right to vote, and we would not have the right to discuss this over a beer.

Point 2, the historical argument – Shays’ rebellion bad, Boston Tea Party good. By that argument, rebellion bad, and we’d still be British subjects. Sorry, not buying it.

Policy argument – you’re pontificating. You rely on a corrupt media to make your case? If that’s all you have then you have less than nothing. By your argument a criminal has more right to kill me and my family than I do to kill him or her for trying. What if it was your family? Are you willing to sacrifice their lives to prove your dishonest, politically driven point of view?

Post 21 – Amen, and simper fi

In WW2 my uncle (7th Marines) told me they often shortened the barrel and action of the still ubiquitous Remington pump because it the weapon of choice in the jungle.

The absence of procurement of shotguns probably says more about how many were already in stock than anything else. I was a grunt in Vietnam (26th Marines). M1911A1 (Browning .45 cal auto)pistols were ubiquitous, but you wouldn’t know that by procurement records. The Corps had not procured a new .45 since 1945. That was till true in 1981 when I left the reserves (4th Shore Party Bn).

More to the point, shotguns with shortened barrels were ubiquitous in the RVN. (The same Remington pump.) They were and are vastly superior to the M-16A1 in the jungle and close combat. That goes double for combat in buildings. I say this from experience up close and personal.

So, the short-barreled shotgun had considerable military utility in 1917, 1939 (Miller), 1968 and so it remains to this day.

Finally, vis a vis the “purpose” of a gun, I am reminded of a comment my grandfather & father often made to my brothers and I: “Never blame a tool for your own mistakes.” Guns are tools. What counts is how the tools are used.

Blaming a tool is a form of thinking with feelings. It never solves anything.

However you missed the point, only shotguns with barrels under 18 inches are classified as a sawed-off shotgun, and none of the military ones are. And if the defined weapon is not being used by the military it has no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

Its only gun control historians that now say the sawed-off shotgun was in common use by the military in 1938. Its like Breyers comment that under the 1792 militia Act pistols were reserved to the officers. Thats modernisum creeping in, the 1792 Act actually required the officers to carry a sword. Pistols are only mentioned in the Act in regards to the cavalry units of the militia and pistols were to be carried by all cavalry members regardless of rank in the unit.

I’m intrigued at your interpretation of the Miller finding. The courts finding was,

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Short barreled shotguns were commonly used in military service at the time, but since Miller’s council was not present at the hearing the opportunity such evidence was never presented. Since it is easily proven that such weapons were in common use, should the SCOTUS now – with the express knowledge that such weapons were and are commonly used by the military / militia – use principle of Stare Decisis to expand on the Miller precidence and find short barreled shotguns and machine guns within the class of Arms protected by the 2nd Amendment?

I presume you know the answer but don’t like the result.

That’s like saying that the only purpose of a car is to burn fuel. The purpose of a car is to provide transportation; in doing so, it may burn fuel, but that is not its purpose. And an ideal car would provide transportation without burning any fuel at all.

In the same way, the purpose of a gun is NOT to kill; the purpose of a gun is to provide security. In providing that security, it may kill, but that is not its primary purpose. And the ideal gun would provide security without killing anyone at all.

The Court can at any time abandon the entire principle and even rule all precident as inadmissible. Nowhere is the concept to be found in the Constitution at all.

Further, the Supreme Court’s decisions bind lower courts, but not the Supreme Court itself. It can overturn any previous ruling it desires at any time.

I see quite a bit of discussion here regarding Constitutional law as something that is merely a guideline, or quaint relic from the past. It isn’t. Actually, it is the law, and more powerful than any legislative statute, court ruling, or executive action.

It’s one thing to debate the desirability of eliminating or modifying various provisions of the Constitution, and another to try to ignore and violate them by simple non-application.

Indeed, that is criminal behavior in and of itself. There is a way to change any part of the law, and that is via the amendment process.

Unless a new amendment is passed changing, increasing, or reducing the right enumerated in an Amendment, it stands as written.

I wonder why I was allowed to carry arms during my military service or control nuclear weapons, yet my possession of arms of my choosing is such a disaster in civilian life? I’m left wondering why police are not a standing army?

I’m surprised I’m allowed to exist in society after being tainted by war?

I am simply amazed that the response to criminal activity is to deny law-abiding citizens their rights for the acts of criminals?

I left wondering what the real motivation must be.

I wonder if the good professor in understands the meaning of the words “shall not be infringed”?

I wonder if the words of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, “.. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” has any meaning any more.

Neither the government at any level, nor police will accept legal responsibility of my safety, while securing it for themselves, yet they are all ready to deny me the right to protect myself and my family in the manner of my choosing?

What arrogance!

There you go again — thinking with your feelings. You recoil in horror at individual incidents and then assume without evidence that the instrumentality is the problem. The overwhelming empirical evidence is that taking away guns in fact makes society more dangerous, not less. The Framers understood this.

My favorite real-life experiment is the UK. 30 years ago, posssesion of handguns was more common in England that the US. The police were not armed because they didn’t need to be. Guns were then banned. Now police are armed and the incidence of violent crime is up by a large portion. One vast increase that may affect your feelings is that burglary where the owners are still in the house is up by 600% +/-. The burglar is armed but the homeowner is not. The “consequences for society as a whole” are grim when firearms are banned.

“Guns are dangerous and deadly, and there is a compelling state interest in limiting their availability.”

This is a non sequitur and the 2d Amendment says you are mistaken. Indeed, the purpose of the 2d Amendment was to prevent just this sort of emotional thinking from becoming policy.

True. However, cars, unlike guns, serve a purpose other than killing things. Guns are designed with an exclusive purpose: killing.

I do believe that D.C. advocates have placed themselves in an untenable position. It is difficult to buy the idea that the high rate of handgun violence justifies banning handguns. After all, if the ban worked, you wouldn’t have such a high rate of handgun violence.

That being the case, I don’t see how the SCOTUS can buy the argument that the ban is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. Hence, I think the District is in real trouble should SCOTUS rule that owning a gun is a fundamental right.