In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939).

   Miller was  widely criticized on many grounds by scholars on both sides of the issue both in terms of holding and just for being poorly reasoned  written(this link is to a good article)  

  Personally, I agree that there is scant support, textually or historically for the claim the  2nd Amendment conferred only a collective right to bear arms which must be limited to arms held in conjunction with a militia-- well regulated or otherwise.

  Even Miller never quite said that, by the way. what it did state is: "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."

   The Miller court then reversed a lower court decision ruling that  a couple of bank robbers could not be prosecuted for violating the National Firearms Act for transporting in interstate commerce a sawed-off that  had not been registered in accordance with the NFA and for which the tax stamp was lacking.

   Miller is, as the author I linked to above states,  "an impenetrable mess," but the holding that the NFA was not unconstitutional insofar as it required registration and taxation for the sawed-off does not necessarily even lend support to the argument the 2nd does not confer an individual right. Some court did subsequently so construe Miller but they were  rickety structures built upon a weak foundation.

   In policy terms I would favor substantially more regulation of firearms, but I an find no fault in the holding the 2nd confers an individual right and next to no merit in the arguments that it does not.

  It's also important to note that individual rights may be (and are) constitutionally regulated. Heller changed the landscape perhaps, but more in terms of altering the analysis and standards of review applied to statutes relating to firearms.

  The new body of law will develop slowly and given the current climate probably very slowly. In the absence of legislation seeking to regulate firearms that gun rights advocates would seek to challenge there won't be many cases. The trend now not is not for more restriction but for legislative easing of restrictions. Obviously, no argument can be made the 2nd Amendment mandates government action to restrict firearm possession, so eliminating or easing restrictions will not result in court cases. Some existing legislative regulation can be challenged under Heller, but the scope of Heller likely won't be fleshed out until some legislative bodies  enact statutes placing stronger regulation on firearms and those statutes are then challenged.

People who reside in households in which firearms are present are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence, than those who reside in gun-free homes. And if you're one of those who conceal-carry, same thing. you're much more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation involving firearms, than those of us who choose to not pack heat.

Further, if you're a member of a gun-owning household, you're far more likely to find yourself facing the business end of a firearm being wielded by an angry family member or personal acquaintance, than you are ever to become a random victim of a gun-toting stranger on the street. The vast majority of gun violence victims are actually shot by someone they know.

I recognize that the Second Amendment isn't going to go away anytime soon. But those in this country who insist upon exercising their rights under that constitutional provision ought to realize that both they and their loved ones are actually less safe because of that personal choice, and are not more secure.

Conservatives will be asking the questions of Trump and they have seen the polls showing Trump to be a disaster against any Democratic candidate.   They will ask Trump questions designed to show he is no conservative, i.e., his past pro choice stance and his statement he was a liberal on health care.

Trump is  ostentatiously not preparing for the debates, but the conservative poo-bahs will be gunning for him.  

I talked to a friend of mine who is a Republican and lives in SC today. She said she probably was not even going to vote in the primary because they are all horrible candidates. I guess you could say at least Trump has some of the GOP excited. I also guess if you're not excited about Trump then you aren't excited about any of them.

I know that feeling, because I find myself wondering about those who claim to be Trump supporters, as in "what's wrong with these people?"

I still say it comes down to people mistaking the ability to speak unfiltered with an ability to govern.  Running the country is NOT like running a business, unless, in Trump's case, he envisions himself as an emperor, or a king, who can sit on a throne and just order people to do his bidding.

And since he's already said he loves the idea of having Sarah Palin in his administration, one can only wonder who else he would want to head the various Cabinet posts and agencies.  What would a Trump Supreme Court nominee look like, for example?

For the moment, he seems hell-bent on knocking his opponents, ripping them new ones and screaming their flaws to the masses.  Which, in the end, isn't going to help him as much as it's going to help the Dems.

Really now, one can do a momentary, reflexive double-take when a women, in the middle of a, let's say, business meeting, begins the activities associated with breast feeding, as if that action is as commonplace, and, settled in the public psyche as, for instance, taking out a handkerchief and blowing one's nose. (And, for god's sake, don't go postal on me here. No, I'm not equating, ah, never mind.)(And, I'm in no way whatsoever excusing Trump, the insensitive, belligerent Buffoon.)

Many actions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, are taking place now, but, still draw some sort of reaction, not necessarily negative, just taking some time getting used to it.

Two same sex individuals kissing passionately in public, interracial couples, ditto. I'm sure there are millions of good, decent, educated, and, as Liberal & open-minded people as one could hope for, reacting momentarily to an activity that's just new to our society. That's as normal as apple pie, and we should be very careful in the P.C. department in being too quick on the draw with the criticism & condemnation.

I'm sorry for going further than I thought I would when I started this post, but, let me get it all out, because, as I've found out, people will interpret comments, first through their own filters, and then, to the meaning of the comment as it was intended.

And the editors at Spy (1986-98) understood celebrity culture, which is why they became arguably the most influential magazine of the late 20th century, or, in Dave Eggers' words "cruel, brilliant, beautifully written and perfectly designed, and feared by all." Combining an elegant house style, barbed satire, and a healthy dose of class-rage, Spy inspired a radical tonal shift in American journalism just in time for the arrival of a perfectly suited new platform: The Internet.

 It specialized in intelligent, thoroughly researched, irreverent pieces targeting the American media, entertainment industries and making fun of high society.[1] Many issues often featured brief photographs of nudity relevant to a story. Some of its features attempted to present the darker side of celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Steven Seagal,[2] Martha Stewart, and especially, the real-estate tycoon Donald Trump

Thanks!

and in terms of views, you and I seem to be at least sometimes in agreement . . at least where we have shared a view