Okay, let's stop right there. Before I answer the rest of the post, please answer me one question. Do you agree or disagree with Justice McReynolds's opinion in U.S. v. Miller?
If the latter, then why are you citing it? Do you cite Roe and Kelo and Dred Scott as well?
If the former, then I must inform you that your interpretation of Miller is mistaken. The exact wording of Miller is as follows:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Let me explain the fallacy you're committing. Suppose you had two propositions, P and Q. In this case, let P be the proposition that Miller's sawed-off shotgun had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And let Q be the proposition that Miller's sawed-off was protected by the Second Amendment. The Court held in Miller that ~P->~Q: not-P implies not-Q. If Miller's sawed-off was not a militia weapon, it was not protected by the Second Amendment.
As it happens, I disagree with this holding. But even accepting it as precedent, if you're given that not-P implies not-Q, it does not follow that P implies Q. That non-militia weapons are not protected does not imply that all militia weapons are. So Miller does not support your argument against Guiliani's interpretation.
Yes, it does. And trust me, I know just a tad more about the 2nd amendment than the average guy.
This quote you pulled out:
""In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.""
Might give your argument credence IF you knew the details behind the case. Before the case went to the supreme court, miller split / died / whatever. So there was no defendant there to present his rationale for it being a valid militia weapon. If he was there, he could have shown evidence that the SBS was a military instrument (used in trench warfare in WWI) and therefore would be covered by militia use/ possession.
What the supremes actually said, in contrast to the lies spun by the anti-gun groups, is that if the gun is valid for use in a militia, then it should be legal for civillian ownership. That would include short barreled shotguns, machine guns, all sorts of pistols and rifles, and many other instruments. The big problem, again, was that miller wasn't around to be part of US v miller to present that argument in his defense. So the supremes said "well, we don't have any evidence this SBS actually IS a militia weapon, so the law stands".
Let me guess: This is probably the first time you heard of US v miller, you spent a little time googling it, read some of the ruling, and then became an instant expert on it. Close?
Oh, and your ridiculous argument about johnny jihad buying 100 machine guns to launch a jihad. Highly unlikely, because that would raise red flags with the dealer. Plus they'd be ungodly expensive.
What's more likely to happen is JJ has his cheap middle east / african AK's shipped over in a container of machine parts, because he can get them oversees for $25 to $50 a piece instead of $1000 each. Or he buys a CNC machine on the used market, and a lathe, and gets plans for an AK or AR from anywhere in the world via the internet. He does it all completely under the radar and undetected by the government.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. So thinking you're only going to catch a jihadist with a law because he calls up, say, Armalite or Krebs custom and asks for a $100,000 worth of full auto rifles is rather ridiculous.
But again, that fits in with most of the points you've been trying to make.