> Do people who don't hold to the exclusively militia reading "cleave" to
> their reading as well or is that sentiment restricted to gun control
> advocates?
What?
> Until just recently
That would be the Heller case. The Miller case was bad case law, Heller does not go far enough to rectify it.
> this has long been the interpretation of the 2nd
> amendment rather than something "normally favored by gun control advocates".
You seem to be referring to the "collective v individual" argument, but you do not make that clear.
> Many years ago a law professor and constitution scholar explained why this
> interpretation had historically held sway and why it was far more likely the
> framers intent.
If you mean Laurence Tribe, he's most recently held that the Second Amendment confers and individual right.
Have you gone out and bought an AR-15 (aka an Evil Black Rifle) lately? Perhaps you should. Then try to upgrade it to full-auto or three-shot burst and then fit it with a sound suppressor, like what the opposition has. Tell us about how your ability to do that has not been infringed.
> Not that I hold the constitution or the framers intentions sacrosanct.
Unlike the 1st Amendment. Or the 5th. Some others.
> We should be able to modify or replace it as desired.
Ladies and children first.
Oops, royalty and their chosen, first.
Bah.