Does that inane babbling have a point to it?
I have repeatedly cited Miller and stated my agreement with it. So does Scalia.
Keep on toking.
But didn’t you just say that Scalia wasn’t even talking about Miller in the quote I posted? You’re too stupid to realize he was talking about Miller, and too stupid to see the implications of his statement and mine regarding Miller are the same:
If militia membership were relevant to 2A rights, Miller’s case would never have been heard because he was not a militiaman.
Keep on ducking, dodging, and pretending you don’t understand. I find it amusing. ;-)
And BTW, your wonderful gangster photos with the question posed of whether they are militia members is now blessedly irrelevant:
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.