What America would look like if it didn't change their Amendments

[jimmy the one]

16. what they did NOT say, does not trump what they DID say

jmg: IF he had a BAR and some one presented evidence of its very well-known military usage, the decision as handed down unanimously would have found such an arm legal and protected by the 2nd.

That's strained reasoning to apply it individually. The right as described by scotus 1939 needed be in conjunction with the 'WRM' purposes, as set forth in the following, applying it to the militia member:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

jmg: .. in Miller, the USSC decision clearly stated the 2nd protects the arms related to militia usage...they did NOT say or even refer to the point that Miller wasn't in a well-regulated Militia, but very specifically stated that the SHOTGUN he possessed wasn't applicable to militia usage.

You sound like the gun lobby nra manipulation of it, their song & dance, which they use to sidestep the obvious interpretation the 1939 supreme court decision expounded upon. According to you, just because they 'did not say', that miller was not in a militia, somehow negates the clear reasoning behind what all 8 of them DID say.
Muddy up the waters is all you are doing.
This wasn't the ruling of the supreme court, the two excerpts I posted are adjunct opinions which clearly demonstrate how they felt. The ruling went against jack miller using the 2ndA to defend himself.