No, the "object" of the amendment was to explicitly forbid any government in the U.S. from taking away or restricting ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Militias were mentioned only as an explanatory reason, not as a restricting condition.
And all other arms a person might own and use, whether for military purposes or not.
You're joking, right?
The Miller decision was so confused and self-contradictory, that it will likely be thrown out the next time it is re-examined by the Supreme Court. This is the reason why lawyers have been VERY careful to never bring any challenge that directly invokes it, before the Supremes. The anti-gun people know they would be cutting their own throats if they did, and would undo all their careful work for generations to disarm the American people.
US v. Miller specified in one part of the decision that weapons that were similar to weapons used in the military at the time, were protected by the 2nd amendment. But then it said that Jack Miller's short-barrelled shotgun
wasn't such a weapon - which was false since short-barrelled shotguns had been used extensively by both sides in the most recent major war, World War I, where they were referred to as "trench guns".
And ever since then, the courts have gotten even more topsy-turvy, frequently prosecuting people because they had military style weapons, in direct conflict of the
Miller decision that said military-style weapons ("assault rifles" etc.)
were protected by the 2nd amendment!
This is what you call "a decent job" by the courts?
You are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mentioned earlier in this thread: Trying to unconstitutionally restrict people's rights by bending over backward and twisting youself into strange pretzel shapes to find "meanings" where there aren't any in the 2nd amendment.
Or were you about to point out the language in the 2nd that states that military-style weapons are protected but others aren't?
Aymette was a clever diversion by government lawyers in the
Miller case. It was invalid since
Aymette referred only state law (and not even the state Miller came from) - the second Tennessee state Constitution of 1835, which was no longer in force by the time Miller was charged. It stated that only white people in Tennessee had the right to keep and bear arms, and then only "for the common defence" - restrictions which are nowhere to be found in the U.S Constitution and its 2nd amendment.
But since neither Miller, nor any of his lawyers, nor anyone at all, showed up for the defense on the day of Miller's Supreme Court trial, such diversions (and several other falsehoods) presented by the government's high-powered prosecution lawyers went unchallenged, and were rubber-stamped into the Opinon of the Court.
It was one of the more spectacular miscarriages of justice the legal world has seen - one which anti-gun lawyers have been careful to keep out of any subsequent court, ever since.... for good reason.
Absolutely true. And they can rescind it any time, using the same method they used to enact it in 1791: Another Constitutional amendment.
But they have chosen (for more than 200 years) not to do so. So the 2nd amendment remains fully in force, as originally written: A flat ban on any government taking away or restricting the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, regardless of skin color, purpose, or military affiliation.
While you are searching for the language in the 2nd that restricts it to only military weapons, you might also want to point out the part that restricts its ban to only the Fed govt, but permits states and localities to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Good luck with that.
As I mentioned to ConHog, you might want to look through this essay, to help find those mysterious sections in the 2nd amendment:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
For some reason, ConHog hasn't gotten back to me with his comments on it. But I have faith.