The founder who told Americans we have a right to military weapons

[Sedalia Dave]

The founder who told Americans we have a right to military weapons

 

Quote

When interpreting the Constitution, judges and scholars consider what people said about the document around the time it was adopted. Writings by the Constitution’s advocates explaining its meaning to the general public are particularly helpful, because Americans relied on those explanations in deciding to ratify the document.

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Great piece of our history 

OLG

[Subdeacon Joe]

You see this echoed in both Miller (1939) and Heller (2008).

Here is something I wrote in the comments of the local paper a few years ago when some idjit was arguing for more anti-civil rights laws, and used the common "rights are not unlimited" argument:

Note Miller (1939) and also Heller (2008)
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."
Note the "in common use" phrase from Miller and confirmed in Heller. Also note that Heller reaffirmed the Miller clause of arms "used by the militia" being protected by the 2nd.
As to "not unlimited." I give you "“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
If we translate Schenck to apply to the 2nd, it would read something like “The most stringent protection of the rights to keep and bear arms would not protect a man in wantonly opening fire in a theatre and causing death, injury, and panic. It does not even protect a man who brandishes a firearm in public with the intent of causing fear and panic among the people.”

So, from your own source - SCOTUS in DC v. Heller, we have it confirmed that the 2nd Amendment "does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
Thank you for pointing out that the Constitution protects the right of the individual to own any weapon that is used by the militia. Since the militia, that is the class known as the organized militia, must be able to merge its units with those of the standing Army, civilian ownership of select fire, full-auto, and even crew-served weapons is a protected right which 'shall not be infringed."