US federal climate change report warns of threat to US economy and lives

[carpedm9587]

Freedom should also always come with responsibility.

Absolutely - which is also the topic of discussion.

[carpedm9587]

Not when you want repeal to the second amendment, perhaps we should put more limits on speech by repealing the first amendment, or put limits on search and seizure protections by repealing the fourth amendment.

No - those amendments are perfectly fine as is. The 2nd is so widely misused and misinterpreted, it needs to be repealed. The data is clear and unambiguous: reduction in guns is correlated to reductions in gun-related deaths and harm in every single country that sees guns as a privilege, not a right. It improves public safety, and reduces risk - without exception. But the gun lobby in the U.S. is so rabidly devoted to defending their absolute and unequivocal right to a "thing" that many cannot see their way clear to supporting any reasonable gun control measures, and they are subverting the will of the majority of Americans. It's time for it to go, IMO. I didn't used to think that way - but too many conversations with too many "gun rights" advocates and too many mass shootings have convinced me otherwise. Without the confusion of the second amendment, we can make reasonable progress towards improving safety. If the opportunity arises, I'll be first in line to vote for repeal. That's a big if - but one can hope and keep working to that end.

[seer]

No - those amendments are perfectly fine as is. The 2nd is so widely misused and misinterpreted, it needs to be repealed.

That is your opinion.

The data is clear and unambiguous: reduction in guns is correlated to reductions in gun-related deaths and harm in every single country that sees guns as a privilege, not a right. It improves public safety, and reduces risk - without exception. But the gun lobby in the U.S. is so rabidly devoted to defending their absolute and unequivocal right to a "thing" that many cannot see their way clear to supporting any reasonable gun control measures, and they are subverting the will of the majority of Americans. It's time for it to go, IMO. I didn't used to think that way - but too many conversations with too many "gun rights" advocates and too many mass shootings have convinced me otherwise. Without the confusion of the second amendment, we can make reasonable progress towards improving safety. If the opportunity arises, I'll be first in line to vote for repeal. That's a big if - but one can hope and keep working to that end.

To be honest Carp, I don't care what you believe on repeal. It will not happen, not without a fight you don't want. And the fact is death by firearms have gone down since the 70s even though there are more guns in circulation.

[carpedm9587]

That is your opinion.

Yes, it is. I used to try to express other people's opinions - and then I realized that just confused everyone - so now I limit myself to my own opinions.

To be honest Carp, I don't care what you believe on repeal.

I was under no illusion that you did.

It will not happen, not without a fight you don't want.

As I said - a thin hope - but always a hope. The tide of the discussion has been changing, and continues to change a bit more with every mass shooting. Heaven knows I don't want anymore mass shootings - but the reality is that they will continue until people are willing to make a change. So the hope remains.

As for the "fight you don't want," I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not threatening that gun owners would turn those guns on their fellow citizens if the laws change. If you were suggesting such a thing, it would really raise questions about your "law abiding" nature and make you essentially equivalent to the violent anti-government militias that dot our country and would further affirm that people like you should not have guns at their disposal. So I'll assume you mean a legal fight in the courts and the ballot box - which is as it should be - and there is nothing about that fight that I "would not want."

And the fact is death by firearms have gone down since the 70s even though there are more guns in circulation.

Yes - but the data does not suggest it is because there are more guns in circulation. Indeed, there are many factors at work, including more police in the field, use of computers and big data to drive policing efforts, reduction in alcohol consumption, reduction in lead (which has cognitive side effects) and improvement in the economy (in general). So those of us who see guns as a serious danger to our nation and our individual safety find ourselves asking, "imagine how much more it could drop if gun ownership were treated as a privilege rather than a right, and gun owners were required to meet defined criteria to own and use a gun?" Based on what we are seeing in every other nation on the planet that has implemented such controls, gun-related violence can plummet significantly.

[seer]

As for the "fight you don't want," I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not threatening that gun owners would turn those guns on their fellow citizens if the laws change. If you were suggesting such a thing, it would really raise questions about your "law abiding" nature and make you essentially equivalent to the violent anti-government militias that dot our country and would further affirm that people like you should not have guns at their disposal. So I'll assume you mean a legal fight in the courts and the ballot box - which is as it should be - and there is nothing about that fight that I "would not want."

No I mean a real honest to goodness civil war (though I'm to old and tired to fight). No doubt in my mind. When a Government becomes despotic what other choice is there?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Yes - but the data does not suggest it is because there are more guns in circulation. Indeed, there are many factors at work, including more police in the field, use of computers and big data to drive policing efforts, reduction in alcohol consumption, reduction in lead (which has cognitive side effects) and improvement in the economy (in general). So those of us who see guns as a serious danger to our nation and our individual safety find ourselves asking, "imagine how much more it could drop if gun ownership were treated as a privilege rather than a right, and gun owners were required to meet defined criteria to own and use a gun?" Based on what we are seeing in every other nation on the planet that has implemented such controls, gun-related violence can plummet significantly.

I did not say that more guns were the cause of the reduction in gun deaths, but more guns do not necessarily lead to more death.

[carpedm9587]

No I mean a real honest to goodness civil war (though I'm to old and tired to fight). No doubt in my mind. When a Government becomes despotic what other choice is there?

Then you are not the person I thought you were, Seer - if you would raise arms against your fellow citizens because they are advocating for a different kind of country. When we are ready to raise arms against our fellow citizens because we're not getting our way, then you become no better than the confederates who took up arms so they could protect their way of life centered on slavery. And you have made a "thing" (gun) more important than a "person." That's a sad commentary on your priorities.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

So now your god dictates that everyone has the right to a gun, any gun, and as many as they want? Really, Seer? I'd be very curious to know exactly where you find THAT in your bible.

On the other hand - I actually don't even care all that much. Anyone who bases their moral choices on an old book is not making rational moral decisions, so a rational discussion is not possible.

I did not say that more guns were the cause of the reduction in gun deaths, but more guns do not necessarily lead to more death.

And yet the numbers defy your idea. Every country that has implemented "guns as a privilege" and instituted significant gun control has seen as corresponding drop in gun-related violence. Every - single - one. So if we have things that are driving gun deaths down - there is NO evidence that I know of that one of those things is "more guns." The evidence suggests that controls would push violence down EVEN MORE then they actually dropped.

[seer]

Then you are not the person I thought you were, Seer - if you would raise arms against your fellow citizens because they are advocating for a different kind of country. When we are ready to raise arms against our fellow citizens because we're not getting our way, then you become no better than the confederates who took up arms so they could protect their way of life centered on slavery. And you have made a "thing" (gun) more important than a "person." That's a sad commentary on your priorities.

So do you question the Founders going to war over taxation?

So now your god dictates that everyone has the right to a gun, any gun, and as many as they want? Really, Seer? I'd be very curious to know exactly where you find THAT in your bible.

I'm telling you what the Declaration states. And there are a lot of serious men in this country, many more than you know, who will fight for those rights.

On the other hand - I actually don't even care all that much. Anyone who bases their moral choices on an old book is not making rational moral decisions, so a rational discussion is not possible.

You are joking right! Like a rational moral discussion is possible with a relativist!

And yet the numbers defy your idea. Every country that has implemented "guns as a privilege" and instituted significant gun control has seen as corresponding drop in gun-related violence. Every - single - one. So if we have things that are driving gun deaths down - there is NO evidence that I know of that one of those things is "more guns." The evidence suggests that controls would push violence down EVEN MORE then they actually dropped.

We are not Sweden...

[carpedm9587]

So do you question the Founders going to war over taxation?

Actually - they didn't "go to war over taxation." They announced their independence due to taxation, specifically because it was done without representation. They went to war when England refused to recognize their right to become independent.

I'm telling you what the Declaration states. And there are a lot of serious men in this country, many more than you know, who will fight for those rights.

I know there are, Seer. We call them militia and they generally operate outside the law, usually as hate groups. You're right to a gun does not trump my right to be safe and my right to protect my loved ones. If we disagree on how best to do that, then we disagree. That's what courts and the legislation is for. That is where the fight belongs. You see, Seer, we're not under a dictatorship. We're in a representative republic. We get to elect our representatives, so we have representation. We have courts of law and the rule of law. You cannot say "the tyranny of the government" when the government is simply following the "will of the people." Indeed, that is what we fought for. What you are arguing for is fighting your fellow citizens because the majority of them disagree with you. But that is not the process we agree to as citizens.

When that process plays out, if the decision is "this is the new law and how we want to live," then you (as a citizen) have two choices: continue to fight to swing the laws back in your favor, or find a different country that is more to your tastes. If you decide to practice civil disobedience, then you will have to accept the consequences legally. If you take up arms because you want the minority to dictate to the majority - then you are nothing more than a lawless thug and will be treated that way. And you also forfeit any claim to be a person who values the "rule of law," because you apparently only value it so long as it is "going your way." That is not the social contract we all live under, so you're not much of an American if that is how you proceed. Indeed, I can think of few things that are more "unamerican" then refusing to accept the outcome of a legal and judicial process.

You are joking right! Like a rational moral discussion is possible with a relativist!

It actually is - but we've been down that road and you can't see it - so 'nuff said.

We are not Sweden...

No - we are not. Never thought otherwise.

[seer]

Actually - they didn't "go to war over taxation." They announced their independence due to taxation, specifically because it was done without representation. They went to war when England refused to recognize their right to become independent.

Well yes they did, they knew how England would respond. So you have no problem with that, but would with those who resisted the government trying to disarm them, and remove a right.

I know there are, Seer. We call them militia and they generally operate outside the law, usually as hate groups. You're right to a gun does not trump my right to be safe and my right to protect my loved ones. If we disagree on how best to do that, then we disagree. That's what courts and the legislation is for. That is where the fight belongs. You see, Seer, we're not under a dictatorship. We're in a representative republic. We get to elect our representatives, so we have representation. We have courts of law and the rule of law. You cannot say "the tyranny of the government" when the government is simply following the "will of the people." Indeed, that is what we fought for. What you are arguing for is fighting your fellow citizens because the majority of them disagree with you. But that is not the process we agree to as citizens.

Carp, the "majority" can be just as despotic, as a despotic King. And that would be the way a lot of people would see this. And yes, my second amendment right does trump your right not to be afraid. And no one is preventing you from protecting your family. Like I linked, gun deaths have gone down over the last 40 years. So what is your beef?

When that process plays out, if the decision is "this is the new law and how we want to live," then you (as a citizen) have two choices: continue to fight to swing the laws back in your favor, or find a different country that is more to your tastes. If you decide to practice civil disobedience, then you will have to accept the consequences legally. If you take up arms because you want the minority to dictate to the majority - then you are nothing more than a lawless thug and will be treated that way. And you also forfeit any claim to be a person who values the "rule of law," because you apparently only value it so long as it is "going your way." That is not the social contract we all live under, so you're not much of an American if that is how you proceed. Indeed, I can think of few things that are more "unamerican" then refusing to accept the outcome of a legal and judicial process.

If memory serves only a large minority supported the Revolution at the time. And the Founders certainly were flaunting the "rule of law."

It actually is - but we've been down that road and you can't see it - so 'nuff said.

Right, and my point remains...

[carpedm9587]

Well yes they did, they knew how England would respond. So you have no problem with that, but would with those who resisted the government trying to disarm them, and remove a right.

Correct. You see, the change would not be made "without representation." The change would be made because the bulk of the U.S. population disagrees that "guns are a right" and wants to see "guns as a privilege" so we can end the carnage. We believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong, and the ferocious gun lobby represents the minority tyrannizing the majority. And we're literally talking terrorism, since a) your guns are being used to kill us (and you) and b) you're threatening violence if you don't get your way. That makes those who think as you are currently expressing yourself not much different than the suicide bombers that think killing people is justified by their religion.

Carp, the "majority" can be just as despotic, as a despotic King. And that would be the way a lot of people would see this. And yes, my second amendment right does trump your right not to be afraid. And no one is preventing you from protecting your family. Like I linked, gun deaths have gone down over the last 40 years. So what is your beef?

Yeah - I keep hearing about the "tyranny of the majority." But what we have here is "tyranny of the minority." No one is saying "no one can own a gun." What is being said is "guns as a privilege to be earned rather than a right to be defended, so reasonable controls can be put in place to protect us." Frankly, I don't give a fig what "many of you people" think anymore. Your willingness to take up arms against your fellow citizens if you don't get your way seals the deal: you're terrorists. You don't deserve guns and they should be taken from you as soon as possible.

If memory serves only a large minority supported the Revolution at the time. And the Founders certainly were flaunting the "rule of law."

I cannot speak to the majority issue - I don't know. And the founders didn't flaunt the "rule of law." They sought to replace laws they had no say over with laws they did. They sought to replace a monarchy with a democratic republic. But you certainly are flaunting the rule of law - so you have no basis for complaining about illegal immigrants, or pretty much anything else that is based in law. After all, you've just demonstrated that you'll dump the law in a heartbeat and take up arms in violence if the law doesn't suit your purposes.

We have a country in which laws we do not like can be addressed: the legislature - the judicial system - and the democratic republic we have constructed. If you're prepared to toss all of that out because you don't get your way, then you're nothing more than a lawless thug and terrorist, and should be treated as such.

Right, and my point remains...

You never made a point, Seer. When I ask you a simple question, all you can do is repeat a dictionary definition we all agree on. Repeating a definition is not an argument. But, for whatever reason, you don't/can't see that.

[seer]

Correct. You see, the change would not be made "without representation." The change would be made because the bulk of the U.S. population disagrees that "guns are a right" and wants to see "guns as a privilege" so we can end the carnage. We believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong, and the ferocious gun lobby represents the minority tyrannizing the majority. And we're literally talking terrorism, since a) your guns are being used to kill us (and you) and b) you're threatening violence if you don't get your way. That makes those who think as you are currently expressing yourself not much different than the suicide bombers that think killing people is justified by their religion.

How am I tyrannizing the majority? And I am not threatening violence. And we believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong, as does the Supreme Court. At present only one in five support repeal. It will never happen in my life time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6274bea4d89d

Yeah - I keep hearing about the "tyranny of the majority." But what we have here is "tyranny of the minority." No one is saying "no one can own a gun." What is being said is "guns as a privilege to be earned rather than a right to be defended, so reasonable controls can be put in place to protect us." Frankly, I don't give a fig what "many of you people" think anymore. Your willingness to take up arms against your fellow citizens if you don't get your way seals the deal: you're terrorists. You don't deserve guns and they should be taken from you as soon as possible.

What tyranny of the minority? You are the one who is trying to take away a long standing right that goes back to English Common law. And to England the Founders were terrorists. But hey, it is all relative - right.

I cannot speak to the majority issue - I don't know. And the founders didn't flaunt the "rule of law." They sought to replace laws they had no say over with laws they did. They sought to replace a monarchy with a democratic republic. But you certainly are flaunting the rule of law - so you have no basis for complaining about illegal immigrants, or pretty much anything else that is based in law. After all, you've just demonstrated that you'll dump the law in a heartbeat and take up arms in violence if the law doesn't suit your purposes.

That makes no sense. I'm trying to protect a right, you are trying to remove a right. The right at bottom is about both self defense, and protecting against the possible tyranny of the government. Majority supported or not. That is why the Founders grounded rights in God, not in the majority. And instituted Electoral College, and made is difficult to amend the Constitution.

[carpedm9587]

How am I tyrannizing the majority?

Let's see - you're guns are killing us (and you) and you just threatened civil war against those who disagree with you.

And I am not threatening violence.

No I mean a real honest to goodness civil war

Did you think this would be fought with harsh words? I understand you excused yourself due to age, but the implication is that you would fight if you were not too old to do so. So any neighbor of yours that disagrees with you would be at risk of harm at your hands.

And we believe your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong, as does the Supreme Court. At present only one in five support repeal. It will never happen in my life time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6274bea4d89d

Which is largely besides the point. Courts have reversed themselves before. After all - we have a supreme court decision denying that black people were citizens, permitting involuntary sterilization of "imbeciles" and the list goes on. The discussion is in the context of the (hopefully soon) day when the majority succeeds in either amending the constitution or putting judges in place that disagree with the interpretation of the current courts, which have weaponized (literally, in this case) many of the statues of the bill of rights to achieve gains the founders never intended.

As far as I can tell, if that were to happen, you would advocate for civil war. That doesn't make you "like the founders." We already HAVE a representative republic. It makes you like Timothy McVeigh.

What tyranny of the minority?

Threatening to take up arms against citizens who disagree with your interpretation should those citizens someday prevail in the courts and legislature.

You are the one who is trying to take away a long standing right that goes back to English Common law.

And which much of the free world - including the country that was the basis for that common law - have reviewed and rejected. Even England recognizes that the "arms" the founders were thinking about when they wrote have fundamentally changed, and guns need to be seen as a privilege, not a right. So yes - I want the "right" gone. No one has an implicit right to a manufactured "thing." Our rights are about freedom, life, happiness. No one has the right to own a house, own a car, or own a gun. And the reason for the 2nd amendment disappeared when the government decided to stand up an army.

And to England the Founders were terrorists. But hey, it is all relative - right.

Oh no doubt about that. You will see yourself as a "freedom fighter" - just like the jihadists - and even the founding fathers. The difference was that the founding fathers were fighting for "self-rule." You would not be fighting for self rule - you would be fighting because "self rule" is not going "your way." THAT is the tyranny of the minority. You have a legal recourse: we have a representative republic. Make your position the dominant position, take over legislatures, influence courts, change laws, etc. The threat to violence if you don't get your way is just terrorism.

That makes no sense.

You do love to say things like this. You realize, of course, that it adds nothing to your argument? Every time I see this I see "to me" at the end of the sentence. The problem is not my ability to make a case - the problem is your ability to understand it.

I'm trying to protect a right, you are trying to remove a right. The right at bottom is about both self defense, and protecting against the possible tyranny of the government. Majority supported or not. That is why the Founders grounded rights in God, not in the majority. And instituted Electoral College, and made is difficult to amend the Constitution.

You are trying to protect a right the rest of us don't think exists. We are trying to assert a privilege we think people should have. We disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and your application of it. We disagree with what the courts have said. So we're going to fight tooth and nail in the legislatures to change the laws. If we can't achieve reasonable control, then I will join to fight tooth and nail to repeal the 2nd. If we succeed, "guns" will no longer be a right protected by the constitution. End of story.

And your attempt to spin it to "self defense" doesn't work. Of course you have a right to reasonable self defense. That does not translate to "own a gun." We can defend by "bearing arms" and/or by eliminating the arms that do the harm. And your argument falls completely apart when it becomes clear that owning a gun INCREASES (by a lot) the probability that you, or someone in your home, will be harmed or killed by that very weapon. So you aren't increasing your safety with a gun - you are reducing it. And the fact that most gun-related crimes are committed using a weapon that is not the property of the criminal means that you folks are not taking proper steps to protect your firearms from theft and misuse. The whole argument is a constant spin on twisted statistics to achieve one end: "we want our guns!" The rest of us have a right to life. Our right to life trumps your perceived right to "own a gun."

If you disagree, then fight in the courts and legislatures. When you threaten violence if your opinion does not hold the day - you become a terrorist. Even if you don't fight yourself, your willingness to incite others to that violence enables terrorism. In my opinion, anyone who acts on your words should face the consequences every terrorist has to face.

[Bill the Cat]

Let's see - your guns are killing us (and you) .

There are about 11,000 firearm homicides each year. There are roughly 400 million firearms in the US. So only 0.0000275% of total guns are used in a homicide.

[seer]

Let's see - you're guns are killing us (and you) and you just threatened civil war against those who disagree with you.

No one killed me with a gun, I don't think. I have owned firearms since I was twelve, and I never killed anyone. And I did not threaten a civil war, I just told you how many I know think and feel about this issue.

No I mean a real honest to goodness civil war

Did you think this would be fought with harsh words? I understand you excused yourself due to age, but the implication is that you would fight if you were not too old to do so. So any neighbor of yours that disagrees with you would be at risk of harm at your hands.

But since I am too old, I have no intention of fighting, and to be honest I don't think it is the Christian thing to do. If I was still young and agnostic I may have a different view. In any case I am no longer a threat.

Which is largely besides the point. Courts have reversed themselves before. After all - we have a supreme court decision denying that black people were citizens, permitting involuntary sterilization of "imbeciles" and the list goes on. The discussion is in the context of the (hopefully soon) day when the majority succeeds in either amending the constitution or putting judges in place that disagree with the interpretation of the current courts, which have weaponized (literally, in this case) many of the statues of the bill of rights to achieve gains the founders never intended.

As far as I can tell, if that were to happen, you would advocate for civil war. That doesn't make you "like the founders." We already HAVE a representative republic. It makes you like Timothy McVeigh.

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. It is all relative right. But like I said, I won't see repeal in my life time, and neither will you.

Threatening to take up arms against citizens who disagree with your interpretation should those citizens someday prevail in the courts and legislature.

Is there anything the majority could do to cause you to fight?

And which much of the free world - including the country that was the basis for that common law - have reviewed and rejected. Even England recognizes that the "arms" the founders were thinking about when they wrote have fundamentally changed, and guns need to be seen as a privilege, not a right. So yes - I want the "right" gone. No one has an implicit right to a manufactured "thing." Our rights are about freedom, life, happiness. No one has the right to own a house, own a car, or own a gun. And the reason for the 2nd amendment disappeared when the government decided to stand up an army.

Have you ever read Madison? He worried about the the tyranny of the majority and the possible tyranny of the government - our government. A standing Army does not change that.

Oh no doubt about that. You will see yourself as a "freedom fighter" - just like the jihadists - and even the founding fathers. The difference was that the founding fathers were fighting for "self-rule." You would not be fighting for self rule - you would be fighting because "self rule" is not going "your way." THAT is the tyranny of the minority. You have a legal recourse: we have a representative republic. Make your position the dominant position, take over legislatures, influence courts, change laws, etc. The threat to violence if you don't get your way is just terrorism.

How about this, you take some states, and we, who are like minded, take other states - problem solved.

You are trying to protect a right the rest of us don't think exists.

What are you talking about? Who is the rest of us? Only one in six support repeal. You are in the distinct minority... So the majority does see it as a right.

[Sparko]

And there is substantial historical evidence that the intent of the amendment was to ensure adequate arms for a nation that did not want a formal military, a position that was reversed after the Bill of Rights was ratified as the early leaders discovered the impossible logistics of protecting a nation with a "well regulated militia." I realize the NRA and gun advocates love to dismiss that history - or claim it doesn't exist (because, after all, it would substantially undermine the "I have a right to guns" message), but that doesn't actually make it go away.

Not according to the SCOTUS in DC v Heller.

The Supreme Court held:[47]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(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.

===
So as I said, it isn't just limited to militia use, but the type of weapons it is written to allow are military type weapons that a militia would use, not just hunting rifles.