As usual, Xanthro isn't telling you the (whole) truth. In discussing the Miller case from 1939 -- the last Supreme Court case to address the 2A -- he talks about "militia", but -- and this is typical of gun-lobby talking points -- he won't tell you the part about "a well-regulated militia," which of course relates to the states and states' rights. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols stumbling drunkenly through the woods with AK-47's might or might not have been a militia, but they certainly were not a well-regulated one.

The Bill of Rights limits what the federal govt can do to individuals. For example, the U.S. cannot unduly restrict our free speech, or punish us in a way that is cruel and unsual. Most of the Bill of Rights have been "applied to the states" -- meaning, for example, no state may restrict our speech or punish us more cruelly than the federal govt may punish or restrict us. But not the 2A; it has never been "applied to the states" (and can't be) because it protects the states (not individuals) by telling the federal govt that it cannot mess with state (well-regulated) militias. The 2A does not protect individuals' rights.

Thus the Miller case. If I remember correctly, Miller was caught transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of federal law, and he claimed 2A protection. The court looked to Miller's state, and found that there was no state law requiring that Miller arm himself with a sawed-off shotgun for state militia purposes. The court ALSO noted that such a weapon is not generally considered a military weapon; and, confident it was not messing with a well-regulated (state) militia, upheld Miller's criminal conviction.

Accordingly, federal appeals courts (the level just below the Supreme Court) routinely hold that the 2A "is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." The only cases since Miller that HAVE gone the gun lobby's way are a recent 5th Circuit case out of Texas that was not appealed by the Bush-Cheney Justice Dept., and the very recent decision by a 3-judge panel in D.C. that the republicans in Congress are frantically trying to prevent from ever reaching the Supreme Court.

All those who are appalled by the gun carnage that plagues the U.S. yet are persuaded by gun "enthusiasts" herein that mass slaughters of school children and college students are only a small price to pay for the freedom from crime, from rudeness, and from one-party tyranny that is now enjoyed by modern Americans thanks to their gun hobbies, say "aye".

[silence]

All those gun "enthusiasts" who have bothered to even read (much less think about) the arguments in favor of gun control, including the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appeals courts have repeatedly held the 2A does NOT protect gun possession by private citizens, and is not an impediment to reasonable gun control laws -- say "aye".

[silence]

Right. We'll see all of you here again next time when we recite the very same arguments following the next horrendous mass shooting (and the next one after that; and the next after that; ad infinitum, ad nauseum). Till then, peace out (and please don't shoot me!).

The right to keep and bear arms must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (1) "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT HELD BY THE STATES, AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN." (2) I don't mind being disagreed with, but I will not be ignored by idiots on both sides of this debate who continue to mindlessly spew NRA-fueled myths about 2A "rights".

(1) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (The key U.S. S.Ct. 2A case)

(2) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)

+ Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 803 (2003)

The right to keep and bear arms must have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (1) "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A RIGHT HELD BY THE STATES, AND DOES NOT PROTECT THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN." (2) Sorry, gun nuts, but instead of relying on your legal expertise, I'll continue to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. (Oh, and to the 2A worthy who mentioned "hundreds" -- or was it "thousands"? -- of contrary opinions: name them.)

(1) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (The key U.S. S.Ct. 2A case)

(2) Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added)

+ Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 803 (2003)

Cool stuff, Andrew. I consulted the index of Sterling Seagrave's 'The Soong Dynasty' and found the following (at ch. 2, p. 66 of the 1985 Harper & Row paperback version):

"Th[e] role of comprador lies at the heart of hatreds that fired the revolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century. It was a complex role -- somewhere between pimp and patrician -- that linked the separate classes in the Orient and provided the lubrication between East and West. Shanghai was a city of compradors.

"No British gentleman, and therefore no foreigner of any nationality hoping to pass as a gentleman, would have dreamed of engaging in direct business dealings with Chinese. Such a thing would have been . . . hard work, requiring a mastery of the Chinese language, Chinese social customs, and Chinese business practice, the latter a mystery unto itself. The British had engaged compradors in their opium trade, often Persians or Iraqi Jews, who became fabulously rich in the process and emerged as some of the great families of Shanghai, including the Sassoons, the Hardoons, and the Kadoories. It was said that they 'came down from Baghdad to Shanghai on camels and left in Rolls-Royces.' "