USA vs Miller

No right of the people to keep and bear any arm known to humankind can be constitutionally denied/prohibited/outlawed short of passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment therefore. The 2nd Amendment is "NOT" weapon specific. The people have an unalienable right to be armed and defend themselves. "An armed people are a free people."
 
evince said:
stop lying about our laws you fucking traitors
Click to expand...

Now is the perfect time to give us a reasoned analysis of Miller (which I have asked for multiple times now) and tell us gun rights supporters (me in particular) exactly how we are wrong on the law and your interpretation is correct.

Time to shit or get off the pot.

Anyone can be a miserable, vulgar contrarian; please demonstrate you have a couple brain cells rattling around in your head and are capable of discourse on a level above throwing scat on the walls and smearing it with your fingers.

Or just continue with that and prove without any doubt that you are a useless idiot without a clue and a total waste of oxygen, bandwidth and time.
 
evince said:
and only your interpitation has meaning asshole?
Click to expand...

Yes, when I can articulate my interpretation on multiple planes (philosophical, historical and legal) and demonstrate that it is the only possible interpretation????

You can bet your ass against mine being the only one with "meaning" and you will always lose . . .
 
evince said:
fuck you you evil fucking racist traitor to this nation
Click to expand...


And there we have a full and complete demonstration of persuasive argument from a useless leftist.

It is a place where vitriol and disgust and evil serve as a proxy for reason, scholarship and actual debate.
 
evince said:
and only your interpitation has meaning asshole?
Click to expand...

Then make your argument of denial to the truth of my interpretation. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" A sawed off shotgun is an "arm." By what degenerative perversion of plain English do you revise the plain simplistic language of the Constitution, moron?
 
evince said:
Jack Miller, a bank robber and moonshiner with many enemies, felt the need to carry a sawed off shotgun without paying the tax. He and his associate, Frank Layton, had the misfortune to be caught transporting it from Oklahoma to Arkansas and were arrested in June of 1938 by federal agents on charges of violating the Firearms Act.



http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm
Click to expand...

So I finally looked at the link you provided and I must ask, did you actually read the article you linked to?

It is not at all helpful to your argument.

It mentions "Cases v. United States in 1942" which I spoke of and notes that lower federal court case was the start of "a steady degradation of the Second Amendment that was often based on misinterpretations of the Miller case."

That misinterpretation was the "militia right" interpretation which held the rights of citizens hostage for over 66 years until Heller slapped the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold by SCOTUS re-affirming the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

It is time for you to wise up and stop lying about the law and misrepresenting the legal record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top