johnston: I know exactly what I'm talking about .... it was eight to zero only because there was no opposing argument nor brief. You know that.
You don't know squat about miller except for pro gun rightwing propaganda. Here you again go with a smoke screen, posting a link to Wikipedia without citing anything that you're talking about, as if the presence of a blue link with the words US v Miller somehow makes your case for you. Cite what you think supports your case rather than a link to what leaves a blank stare on readers faces as they try to decipher what in the hell you're getting at. In your case, your wiki link fails far more than it succeeds (my next post).
And what in the world does the following excerpt from the 1939 miller decision even have to do with technical details of the case? the following is a broad reading of what the 2nd amendment represented, does not mention miller or the case in particular; it could've been tacked on to any related 2ndA ruling, and would not hinge on whether miller or Layton testified at all:
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 {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
I'll remind you of your absurd remark in post 6, where you ignored the above clearly collective rights arguments by a UNANIMOUS 8-0 supreme court, and wrote how miller 'didn't buy the collective rights argument either.' Explain your absurdity.
Johnston, post 6: Both sides like to bring up Miller, but Miller didn't buy the collective rights argument either.
They bought the collective rights argument, packaged it & broadcast it for all to hear too, that's clear enough.
= new reply since forum marked as read