Democratic Underground - That's bull and you know it.

I've addressed your points a lot more than you've addressed mine.

1) Miller was decided again today? How come I didn't hear about that? And here I was thinking it was decided in 1939! The definition in Miller is 65 years out of date. It doesn't matter whether you think so, it is so. And that fact explains the difference in understanding of the militia issue between Miller and Silveira.

2) It's not circular reasoning to say that Silveira is based on the reasoning it's based on. It's just stating the obvious, for those who have difficulty grasping it.

3) You can try to canonize your personal opinion all you want and it doesn't elevate it one inch above being just your personal opinion. The Silveira decision, on the other hand, has the force and authority of law.

4) Miller said that the Second Amendment was no relevant to anybody's right to own any weapon outside the specific context of the militia. That was the basis for the decision, explicitly stated and restated throughout the text. Emerson 2001 yammered about the Second Amendment and Emerson 2004 briefly mentioned it, but in both cases the Second Amendment was found inapplicable and therefore irrelevant to the case at hand. The Second Amendment interpretation in Emerson (either version) played no part in the decision and therefore is no part of the precedent. A decision can be overturned on appeal - irrelevant verbiage cannot, and therefore carries no legal weight.

Reply #202: That's bull and you know it. [View All]