Could someone explain to me, if, and how, the
decision negates our right to militia weapons??
I understand, and agree that the ruling negates the argument that we
only have a right to militia weapons, as I see it, by ruling the core of the right to arms is independent of militia service, isn't that IN ADDITION to our citizen's right to arms suitable for militia use??
If not, why not?
It seems there are two opposing ideas at work here,
Everything that is not prohibited is permitted
Everything that is not permitted is prohibited
I do not see how anyone can apply either of these two principles differently to different things, without being deliberately deceitful. (aka
lying 
)
The biggest irony of the "assault weapon panic" to me, is that the government, led by the gun banners, virtually created the situation they most feared, making these weapons popular and mainstream.
And that was well before the current attempt to define virtually every semi automatic as an "assault weapon".
ARs, FALs, H&Ks and a few others were on the civilian market from the early/mid 1960s on. They weren't all that popular. Sales were steady enough, but not large, and no where near dominating the market.
Until they tried to ban them.
So, here we are now, with a lot of people doing their best to restrict, regulate, and ban what they call "weapons of war that have no place on our streets" and yet we have the 2nd Amendment saying that if anything is an arm that people have a right to keep and bear, it IS those same "weapons of war".
Their counter argument was that the right to those militia weapons only applied if you were in the militia...
The
Heller decision stated that the right exists independent of militia service.
So, militia suitable weapons (military style arms) AND everything else, including sporting arms that could be used for personal self protection, I realize the anti-gun people want us to have neither, but under existing law don't we have a right to BOTH???
Why aren't we making this point, as well??