NRA to America - 'Fuck you! This shooting is your fault!'

[RavenSky]

Banning certain types of rifles will only have a limited impact. There is no reason you couldn't easily kill 20 people (or many more) just using handguns.

If you could raise the age for buying *all* guns to 21, then that might make a difference, but of course there are so many guns around in America that it's hardly a guarantee.

every state is different, but in Florida, the legal age to purchase a handgun is already 21.

That is what makes it so infuriatingly stupid to allow an 18 year old to buy a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle!

So anyway, suggesting more guns in schools, is a sensible enough suggestion. That doesn't mean it's correct, but it needs to be settled on the evidence...

The evidence has already shown it to be a stupid dangerous idea.

 

[RavenSky]

Banning certain types of rifles will only have a limited impact. There is no reason you couldn't somewhat less easily kill 20 people (or many more) just using handguns.

FIFY. Have you seen radiology from people injured by handguns and people injured by an AR15 round?
If you want to survive, choose a handgun thoracic wound over an AR15 shot to the thigh. AR15s are designed to kill people, and they do,
Why make it easy?

Well ok, ban them and let's assume you save lives. You will still have school shootings with potentially dozens killed in each attack. So it would have only a limited impact on the problem, regardless of the value in saving X number of lives.

I suspect that the students whose lives are spared (and their families) will prefer imperfect progress to more dead children from doing nothing.

 

[Vork]

The second amendment was fine prior to the tortured reinterpretation by Scalia in the Heller case. Prior to that, the second applied only to members of the militia. There were numerous gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller and all were acceptable because they were applied to the general public, not the militia. Scalia screwed the pooch and turned us into what we are today.

I'm no expert on the history of interpretation, but from what I posted recently in a different thread, the idea that it protects individual rights goes back a long time. So it isn't just a "modern" interpretation, even if it's been controversial.

Also, the shift in viewpoint recently has come from (at least in part) liberal scholarship on the issue. And you would think liberals are going against their natural bias to come to that conclusion in support of an individual right to have firearms.

But of course it's possible for judges to just make up nonsense and pretend it's the law. Liberals benefited heavily from that on the abortion issue, and I have never noticed them speaking out against that.

 

[Vork]

Well ok, ban them and let's assume you save lives. You will still have school shootings with potentially dozens killed in each attack. So it would have only a limited impact on the problem, regardless of the value in saving X number of lives.

I suspect that the students whose lives are spared (and their families) will prefer imperfect progress to more dead children from doing nothing.

The same can be said about arming school staff *if it saves some lives*. Not being willing to try, and study the results, could cost lives.

 

[RavenSky]

Well ok, ban them and let's assume you save lives. You will still have school shootings with potentially dozens killed in each attack. So it would have only a limited impact on the problem, regardless of the value in saving X number of lives.

I suspect that the students whose lives are spared (and their families) will prefer imperfect progress to more dead children from doing nothing.

The same can be said about arming school staff *if it saves some lives*. Not being willing to try, and study the results, could cost lives.

The point is that it HAS been tried.

An armed deputy hid outside while 17 students and teachers were killed inside.

 

[Angry Floof]

The same can be said about arming school staff *if it saves some lives*. Not being willing to try, and study the results, could cost lives.

The point is that it HAS been tried.

An armed deputy hid outside while 17 students and teachers were killed inside.

See the link I posted about the teacher who shot herself in the bathroom at school. Also see the armed guard who did nothing to stop the last shooting. Also other stories of teachers shooting themselves, or toddlers shooting their moms, or whatever. There's such a long list of useless "good guys with guns" and some who made things worse, that we're exhausted from linking them all the time. The fully armed wet dream of right wingers is an infantile fantasy based in their inability to deal with the fear mongering they've been bombarded with from their ideological mouthpieces.

 

[Rhea]

The fully armed wet dream of right wingers is an infantile fantasy based in their inability to deal with the fear mongering they've been bombarded with from their ideological mouthpieces.

Yup. Word for word.

 

[ZiprHead]

The second amendment was fine prior to the tortured reinterpretation by Scalia in the Heller case. Prior to that, the second applied only to members of the militia. There were numerous gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller and all were acceptable because they were applied to the general public, not the militia. Scalia screwed the pooch and turned us into what we are today.

I'm no expert on the history of interpretation, but from what I posted recently in a different thread, the idea that it protects individual rights goes back a long time. So it isn't just a "modern" interpretation, even if it's been controversial.

Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.

I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.

 

[Bomb#20]

The second amendment was fine prior to the tortured reinterpretation by Scalia in the Heller case. Prior to that, the second applied only to members of the militia. There were numerous gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller and all were acceptable because they were applied to the general public, not the militia. Scalia screwed the pooch and turned us into what we are today.

I'm no expert on the history of interpretation, but from what I posted recently in a different thread, the idea that it protects individual rights goes back a long time. So it isn't just a "modern" interpretation, even if it's been controversial.

Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.

I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." -- US v. Miller​

What is there in the Miller decision that you think Scalia gave a tortured reinterpretation of in Heller? As far as I can see, the two decisions are 100% consistent with each other. And it's not just me. The SCOTUS decision affirmed the earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- i.e., the appellate court had also thought the DC city council ordinance was unconstitutional.

Entirely apart from the fact that Dick Heller was clearly a member of the militia as Miller understood the term, your statement that Miller held that the 2nd amendment only applied to members of the state militia appears to be incorrect. (I'm guessing you probably haven't read the Miller decision and have been relying on third party representations of it.) I can't see anything in Miller addressing whom it applies to. Miller says what it applies to. "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." It says the constitutional right applies to types of weapons in common use and suitable for a militia. So, for example, there's nothing in Miller to imply that the government can ban someone from having a rifle because she's a woman, even though Miller defines her to not be part of the militia.

"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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."​

Miller is only about classifying weapons; the ruling simply didn't address whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right. This is normal -- when the SCOTUS can dispose of a case on narrow grounds instead of broad grounds, it usually does so.

As far as Heller and Scalia are concerned, what reason is there to think any of the gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller would have gone down differently post-Heller? There's nothing anti-gun-regulation in the Heller decision. The SCOTUS didn't tell DC that Mr. Heller didn't need a permit; it told them to either give him a permit or to come up with a better reason than "Nobody gets a permit". The sky doesn't fall because it's an individual right. An individual having a right to a pistol doesn't mean the government can't ban AR-15s. There's an awful lot of hand-wringing going on about Heller, and as far as I can see, it's completely overblown. Heller knocks down only the most extreme of gun control measures.

 

[laughing dog]

Banning certain types of rifles will only have a limited impact. There is no reason you couldn't easily kill 20 people (or many more) just using handguns.

Clearly the evidence from these mass shootings is that regular handguns are not the weapon of choice - which strongly suggests that it is not as easy to kill that many people with handguns.

If you could raise the age for buying *all* guns to 21, then that might make a difference, but of course there are so many guns around in America that it's hardly a guarantee.

There are no guarantees in life. It simply would make it harder for a teenager to legally buy a gun. Which might reduce the frequency of these shootings.

So anyway, suggesting more guns in schools, is a sensible enough suggestion. That doesn't mean it's correct, but it needs to be settled on the evidence, not liberal outrage that anyone could think more guns are the answer to gun violence.

Of course it can't work as well as getting rid of guns, but you can't get rid of guns in America. That's just not plausible. But you *might* see a reduction in attacks, or the overall number of deaths, from arming school staff. Try it. Study it. Implement it if it works.

Let me get this straight - you want overworked teachers to become proficient in the handling of fire arms and in killing people? And somehow you don't think there is something antithetical about a place dedicated to learning in becoming an armed camp?

BTW, in the Florida shooting, there was an armed "school resource officer" on the campus who stayed outside the school while the murders took place (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/22/armed-sheriffs-deputy-stayed-outside-florida-school-while-mass-killing-took-place/?utm_term=.4f24ff2e8c03) This person was a member of the law enforcement community.

 

[LordKiran]

I've said this before but the second ammendment really is just like an unecessary organ that no longer has a function.

The initial purpose of the second ammendmant was to ensure the populace could be rallied into an army whenever the nation needed. This was because a standing army was seen as a threat to people's liberty. Then the war of 1812 happened, and those American militias learned first hand just how garbage they were when the canucks chewed them up and spat them back out. So we have a standing army now and have never looked back.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.

I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." -- US v. Miller​

What is there in the Miller decision that you think Scalia gave a tortured reinterpretation of in Heller? As far as I can see, the two decisions are 100% consistent with each other. And it's not just me. The SCOTUS decision affirmed the earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- i.e., the appellate court had also thought the DC city council ordinance was unconstitutional.

Entirely apart from the fact that Dick Heller was clearly a member of the militia as Miller understood the term, your statement that Miller held that the 2nd amendment only applied to members of the state militia appears to be incorrect. (I'm guessing you probably haven't read the Miller decision and have been relying on third party representations of it.) I can't see anything in Miller addressing whom it applies to. Miller says what it applies to. "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." It says the constitutional right applies to types of weapons in common use and suitable for a militia. So, for example, there's nothing in Miller to imply that the government can ban someone from having a rifle because she's a woman, even though Miller defines her to not be part of the militia.

"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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."​

Miller is only about classifying weapons; the ruling simply didn't address whether the 2nd amendment is an individual right. This is normal -- when the SCOTUS can dispose of a case on narrow grounds instead of broad grounds, it usually does so.

As far as Heller and Scalia are concerned, what reason is there to think any of the gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller would have gone down differently post-Heller? There's nothing anti-gun-regulation in the Heller decision. The SCOTUS didn't tell DC that Mr. Heller didn't need a permit; it told them to either give him a permit or to come up with a better reason than "Nobody gets a permit". The sky doesn't fall because it's an individual right. An individual having a right to a pistol doesn't mean the government can't ban AR-15s. There's an awful lot of hand-wringing going on about Heller, and as far as I can see, it's completely overblown. Heller knocks down only the most extreme of gun control measures.

Strange that you left out the next line in your first quote. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

And then there's this: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

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."

You're cherry-picking. Taken as a whole, Miller well defined the membership of the militia as enrolled and to be called to service in support of their government.

From Heller: " a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right....

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

Scalia completely ignored the definitions of the militia as laid out quite clearly in Miller. He is, as you are, cherry picking.

 

[Vork]

The same can be said about arming school staff *if it saves some lives*. Not being willing to try, and study the results, could cost lives.

The point is that it HAS been tried.

An armed deputy hid outside while 17 students and teachers were killed inside.

One case of an armed deputy "hiding outside" isn't real evidence at all. I assume you do realize this.

Quoting from a recent article by someone involved (or previously involved) in research on gun violence:


...Common sense doesn’t tell us whether a ban on semi-automatic rifles will reduce mass shootings—that question is too complicated for us to simply work out in our heads. But it’s possible a well-designed study could, and would in turn build public trust in any resulting legislation.

The problem is that scientists don’t have the resources to do the research we so urgently need.

We used to be able to conduct such work. In the 1980s, researchers at the CDC began a program to find out how to prevent gun violence. But in 1996, Congress, with prodding from the NRA, stepped in. That year, the House and Senate passed the so-called Dickey amendment, which declared that none of the federal funds for the CDC’s injury center could be used “to promote or advocate gun control.” The amendment did not explicitly prohibit the CDC from conducting gun violence research; it prohibited the CDC (and later, other federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health) from lobbying for gun control legislation. Nevertheless, the provision was a shot across the bow and had a chilling effect. A second shot was Congress’ taking away the $2.6 million that the CDC’s injury center had been spending annually to support gun violence research. The third shot was fired by CDC itself, when the agency director fired the person most closely identified with the gun violence prevention research. (That person was me.) Soon, the CDC’s research effort was reduced by more than 90 percent.

In 2003, the U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services—a national independent group of experts that makes evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services—reviewed all the available scientifically valid research about preventing firearm injuries. That included research on bans on specific guns or ammunition, restrictions on gun acquisition, waiting periods, registration and licensing for firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapons carry laws, child-access prevention laws, zero tolerance of firearms in schools and combinations of firearm laws. For every one of these major categories of interventions, the conclusion was the same: There was insufficient evidence to say whether the interventions were effective. The reason: Research efforts had slowly but steadily ground to a halt following the passage of the Dickey amendment.

The NRA likes to argue that research about gun violence inherently threatens gun rights. But it is possible—indeed, necessary—for scientists to find ways to both reduce gun violence and protect gun rights....

It is the same with gun violence: We need to find interventions that will both stop the violence and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. For instance, right now we don’t know whether arming all teachers in a school will save lives or take more lives. We don’t know whether making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons will save lives or result in more deaths....

Today, I believe the Dickey amendment should be preserved, to assure those on the gun-rights side of the debate that none of the funds they send to CDC will be used to lobby for gun control legislation and that these funds will be used only to support scientific research....

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/18/whats-missing-from-the-gun-debate-217022


So I'm not so sure that "all the research has already been done", and it just happens to support liberal viewpoints...

 

[Vork]

The second amendment was fine prior to the tortured reinterpretation by Scalia in the Heller case. Prior to that, the second applied only to members of the militia. There were numerous gun control regulations tested by the supreme court prior to Heller and all were acceptable because they were applied to the general public, not the militia. Scalia screwed the pooch and turned us into what we are today.

I'm no expert on the history of interpretation, but from what I posted recently in a different thread, the idea that it protects individual rights goes back a long time. So it isn't just a "modern" interpretation, even if it's been controversial.

Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.

I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.

OK, but even if there was a long-ish period where the Supreme Court appeared to reject an "individual rights" interpretation, and even if we imagine that the Supreme Court has been inconsistent with itself, that's not a proof of the original intention of the legislation by any means.

It's quite possible that the Supreme Court making a decision decades after the law was originally written, failed to do the proper research on original intention, or were influenced by political bias or whatever else.

If they didn't really come to this issue until after a hundred years from the original writing, (?), I mean that's a lot of cultural distance and the legislation may just not have been very well written in the first place.

 

[Valjean]

The important thing to remember amidst all the screaming is that the crazy people with the hordes of high powered weapons are the real victims here.

"High power weapons?" When did the AR "mouse gun" become a high powered weapon?

 

[Vork]

Clearly the evidence from these mass shootings is that regular handguns are not the weapon of choice - which strongly suggests that it is not as easy to kill that many people with handguns.

I believe handguns have actually been more often used than rifles in mass shootings in the United States--

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Of course some people today may think they have an advantage with a rifle, and they may be correct, certainly at a distance. But that doesn't change what I said, that you can easily have dozens dead just with handguns. Even if it's a bit more difficult, it's still very easily dozens of people dead.

Let me get this straight - you want overworked teachers to become proficient in the handling of fire arms and in killing people?

Well it could be some teachers, and some other members of staff.

And somehow you don't think there is something antithetical about a place dedicated to learning in becoming an armed camp?

There is a duty to protect children in these places. So I would be thinking very hard about e.g. reinforced doors, and window blinds for an emergency (so even if bullets can get through windows, you can't see easy targets) It's not want you want in a place of learning, but if it's needed to protect people. The same goes for armed security etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course some people today may think they have an advantage with a rifle, and they may be correct, certainly at a distance. But that doesn't change what I said, that you can easily have dozens dead just with handguns. Even if it's a bit more difficult, it's still very easily dozens of people dead.

If it is a bit more difficult, then that is a good outcome.

Well it could be some teachers, and some other members of staff.

You mean like the deputy who was on the scene and did nothing?

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, several states prior to Heller held that gun rights were an individual right. But Heller was the first to interpret it at the federal level. Prior to Heller, the only other major supreme court case to be decided was US v. Miller (1939). It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller.

I noticed that Dana Loesch cited George Mason as disagreeing with the militia factor. George Mason did not sign onto the constitution and quit the negotiation because of his disagreement.

OK, but even if there was a long-ish period where the Supreme Court appeared to reject an "individual rights" interpretation, and even if we imagine that the Supreme Court has been inconsistent with itself, that's not a proof of the original intention of the legislation by any means.

It's quite possible that the Supreme Court making a decision decades after the law was originally written, failed to do the proper research on original intention, or were influenced by political bias or whatever else.

If they didn't really come to this issue until after a hundred years from the original writing, (?), I mean that's a lot of cultural distance and the legislation may just not have been very well written in the first place.

See my post above to Bomb20 and the link therein posted by Bomb. It clearly defines, using prior history, the definition of a militia.

And here is Scalia's Heller decision.

 

[RavenSky]

One case of an armed deputy "hiding outside" isn't real evidence at all. I assume you do realize this.

It has been far more than 1 deputy

View attachment 14674

 

[Bomb#20]

Strange that you left out the next line in your first quote. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."

Nothing strange about it: I'm not going to paste in the entire text of the opinion on the off chance that you'll decide some other line is vital context. That's what providing the link is for. I'm not following why you think that particular line makes a critical difference.

In the first place, we are a body of citizens enrolled for military discipline. Like nearly everyone else who's male and over 18, I'm registered for the draft. To take out citizenship you say "I hereby declare, on oath, that <blah blah blah>; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that <blah blah blah>". And in the second place, even during the times when the government wasn't enrolling us, and even if you choose to define draft registration as empty symbolism on the grounds that there's no draft at the moment, since when do people's rights go away just because a legislature changes a policy they can change back with the flick of a bic? It takes a constitutional amendment to make a right go away; or at least it's supposed to.

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

And then there's this: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

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."

You're cherry-picking. Taken as a whole, Miller well defined the membership of the militia as enrolled and to be called to service in support of their government.

So what? The point was to make sure that if the government some day calls us to service in support of our government, it will be able to, because we won't have been previously disarmed. How the heck does "Well, we're disarming you anyway, and that's legal because we don't currently intend to call you to service in support of your government." satisfy that constitutional requirement? The government can't just disenroll the bulk of the militia's membership and then disarm them without completely defeating the purpose of the amendment. That would make the militia into a "select militia". The authors well remembered the Stuart kings trying that, and they intended to prevent it from happening again.

In any event, even if you continue to believe "the militia" refers to far fewer people than I think it refers to, how does that support your contentions about Scalia and Heller? The fact remains that the Miller decision is discussing what a militia is for a reason, and that reason is for the purpose of determining what kind of arms we have a right to bear, not for the purpose of determining who among us has the right to bear them. You wrote "It held that the 2nd only applied to members of the state militia and it stayed that way until Heller." No, Miller didn't hold that.

We can tell, because (a) you can't quote it saying anything to that effect; and (b) the notion that it was somehow implied makes no sense in context. If the SCOTUS had intended their ruling to be understood to mean that the right to bear arms applied not to the general public but only to some small militia the government selects the members of, then why the devil would they have gone on and on about pikes, pounds of powder and lead, musket bore, and the number of inches in a shotgun barrel? They would instead have simply noted that Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers, not men the government had selected and called for service expecting them to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, and ruled them rather than their guns ineligible for 2nd amendment protections.

From Heller: " a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology. All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right....

So which part of that seems unreasonable to you? Do you think if the government banned the public from assembling to protest, but it held a stage-managed peaceful public assembly run by the government and to be attended by those the government called up for it, that their pro-government rally would satisfy "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Surely you don't. Surely you know that's an individual right.

So if you're convinced the 2nd amendment is some sort of collective right that a state can satisfy by voting to have a standing professional security force instead of citizen soldiers, then please explain why on earth the authors use the phrase "the right of the people" to refer to a right of every individual in one sentence, and then turn around and use the exact same phrase to refer to a right of a legislature in their next sentence.