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. 253.
Talk about irony.
I cite Miller, you piss your pants. You pretend Scalia's comment refutes me and when it does the opposite you go ballistic.
Your strawman wilted.