Here is a good segment from the event, one that stand out to me.
The on thing in it (out of many) that kills me here, and I think should kill his credibility too, is when he goes to say (at the 2:00 mark) that the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restrictions can be placed on who can own, and WHAT KIND OF FIREARMS can be owned. Now I know he is right about the first part. That can be clearly read in the Heller v. DC ruling. I cannot find any decision that says it is reasonable to restrict what kind of firearms can be owned. Furthermore in the United States v Miller decision this excerpt can be found:
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were EXPECTED to appear BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES and of the kind IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME."
So in short, as applied to the 2A, if you are called up for service in the militia you are expected to show up with your own firearm that is in common use at the time. Is it just me or aren't these so called "assault riffles" that are being attacked common arms of our time??
Maybe I'm reading this with a bias but I truly hate misinformation. So if anybody reads that court decision differently, or knows of one that allows for the restriction of types of firearms please let me know.