it kills me that the .gov has the balls to restrict our 2nd by reading it and going, "...well, you can't have these types of guns because the 2nd doesn't EXACTLY say you can.", or, "...you can't carry these types of weapons because the 2nd doesn't EXACTLY say you can."

all the while arming themselves and the us military branches / law enforcement.

tell me where EXACTLY it says the .gov has a right to arm itself. actually, tell me where anything says anything like that at all...

i'm not implying that the military or law enforcement shouldn't have weapons [that's rediculous]. what i am saying is: if they can do so with nothing that says they can, how can they even think to restrict me when i have something that DOES say i can...?

Quoted: It could also mean the end of legal handgun ownership. If a sawed off shotgun is not suitable for military use, is a handgun? (actually, I say yes - but the court may not) Taking your logic to the extreme, it could mean that instead of a hummer, I buy a bradley with a 40 mm cannon for fun. RPGs, handgrenade, claymoores (do they use these anymore?) all sorts of arms are now used for military purposes. Hell, I've be eying a nice F-18 to patrol my neighborhood

No, it couldn't mean the end of handgun ownership. Revolvers and semi autos have been used by the militia and army since their inception. And as far as the sawed off shotgun, it was incorrectly declared to have no intrinsic militia value.
Sawed off shotguns were used in WWi, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. As a matter of fact, Remington has a new shotgun system, WITH a short barrel for military use, and they have that neat underbarell system for use on the M-16 family of guns.
SO the sawed off shotgun has an intrisic militia value....

Quoted: Actually if you go further back you will find that Congress recognised that they could not ban weapons of any kind but they could levy taxes on them hence the NFA. They subsiquently applied the same logic to MaryJ, which was legal during Prohibition, with a little twist. It took till 1970 for SCOTUS to rule that law unconstitutional and a new drug law was enacted. The 86 ban is clearly Unconstitutional and it's just a matter of time & money before it's declared so.

Where did SCOUTS find the power to make a registry of firearms in the Constitution? Another made up power.

What  I am advocating is that we go to our lawmakers, and get the law changed on the premise that US v. Miller upholds the unConstitutionality of the NFA, because the NFA, with it's $200 tax at the time enacted, became a de facto ban, by placing the ability of the average American to own an MG out of reach.
We are lucky that the gun banners in Congress have not attempted to tag the NFA tax to inflation, because we would be screwed if they did, which would again enact a de facto ban.

The NFA violates the Second Amendment, because it regulated the ownership of firearms, and gives the ATF the power to grant or deny that 'right'.

TAG.

Quoted: There are no "collective" rights. There are only individual rights.

Big +1. Think about it. If a right was "collective" then how many people would you need to be considered a "collective"? If a right was collective then that would mean one person would not have the right whereas whatever was defined as a collective (2 or more?) would have the right.

Quoted: Quoted: it kills me that the .gov has the balls to restrict our 2nd by reading it and going, "...well, you can't have these types of guns because the 2nd doesn't EXACTLY say you can.", or, "...you can't carry these types of weapons because the 2nd doesn't EXACTLY say you can." all the while arming themselves and the us military branches / law enforcement. tell me where EXACTLY it says the .gov has a right to arm itself. actually, tell me where anything says anything like that at all... i'm not implying that the military or law enforcement shouldn't have weapons [that's rediculous]. what i am saying is: if they can do so with nothing that says they can, how can they even think to restrict me when i have something that DOES say i can...? The government doesn't have rights.  Government has powers.  What are they?  This is Congress-specific: Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Answer your question?

Hmmmm, where does it say the right to TAAAAAAAAAAAAXXXXXXX?????