It mattered to the Miller court, Mr. any-weapon-is-a-militia-weapon.
What a simpleton. How can you embarrass yourself like that? Have you no pride? No self-esteem?
The phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" pretty much means any weapon.
It is pretty clear to clear thinking people.
Pg 30
The District claims that Miller’s historical account of the “Militia” supports its position. Yet according to Miller, the militia included “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence” who were “enrolled for military discipline.” And Miller’s expansive definition of the militia—qualitatively different from the District’s concept—is in accord with the second Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Second Congress.11 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271. Of course, many of the members of the Second Congress were also members of the First, which had drafted the Bill of Rights. But more importantly, they were conversant with the common understanding of both the First Congress and the ratifying state legislatures as to what was meant by “Militia” in the Second Amendment. The second Militia Act placed specific and extensive requirements on the citizens who were to constitute the militia:
Of course, you'd know that if you'd bothered to read it.
You are plunging to new depths of stupidity here Bobby. Have you been drinking to excess tonight?