“Xanthro, the Presser case is from 1886;”

WeikuBoy, I’m fully aware of when and under what circumstances Court cases I cite were decided. I actually read and study said cases as opposed to misquoting passages lifted from ill informed websites.

------------------------------------

“and the quote you hang your hat on -- which is not relevant to that case or supported by legal authority -- merely states that just as the 2A limits the U.S. from interfering with well-regulated (i.e., state) militias, so the states cannot interfere with the U.S. "militia". It would be strange if the U.S. Army at Ft. Bliss, or the Texas National Guard, could not drill with M-16's because assault weapons were banned by the state of Texas. Nice try, I guess; but Miller is still the law of the land:”

Presser says nothing of the sort. Presser says that under Federal law that States may have a standing militia and limit the parading and and opening carrying of arms by large bodies of men without State sanction, but not withstanding, that “the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Miller neither supercedes nor counters Presser as Miller limits itself to what types of firerams fall under the provision of the Second Amendment, and not who falls under such a provision.

Again, Aritcle I section 10 of the Constitution and the Second Amendment as you interpert it, are mutually exlusive. It can’t be both “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace" and that Congress cannot limit the Militia’s ability to keep and bear arms when Congress can simply keep the States from having troops in the first place.

Now, find one legal opinion or copy of the Consitution that States Ariticle I Section 10 is not in affect. You can’t find it as it doesn’t exist and that alone invalidates your claim.

You, on the other hand, exemplify the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So let me explain that cases later in time supersede (not "supercede") prior conflicting decisions; and there is a difference between a court's holding, on the one hand, versus words in passing concerning matters not relevant to the decision, on the other.

-------------------------------

Speaking of little knowledge, when the Court supersedes a previous decision, it makes clear that it has done so.

Your silly argument is somehow Miller, which you don't understand, invalidates Presser when it does not.

Again, Article I section 10 of the Constitution and the Second Amendment as you interpret it, are mutually exclusive. It can’t be both “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace" and that Congress cannot limit the Militia’s ability to keep and bear arms when Congress can simply keep the States from having troops in the first place.

Now, find one legal opinion or copy of the Constitution that States Article I Section 10 is not in affect. You can’t find it as it doesn’t exist and that alone invalidates your conclusion.

-------------------------------------------------

Again, either show where Article I section 10 is invalid or admit you are wrong. You can't have to mutually exclusive interpretations of the Constitution.

Kansas required reporting of partial-birth abortions and the reasons why they were performed. In 1998 & 1999, the two years for which data was available before the procedure was outlawed, 240 women had an "intact D&E." Not one was performed to save the life of the mother or protect her physical health. Every single partial birth abortion was done for "mental health" reasons.

Disturbingly, of 65,000 women who had an abortion over the 10 year period, 15% had had 2 prior abortions.

-------------------------------------------

Why wouldn't mental health reasons be listed? You think it doesn't help a women's mental health to not have the fetus dismembered?

And that 10% has nothing to do with this particular procedure. All this ruling does is advocate fetal dismemberment.

Nice to know where you stand on the issue of cutting up fetuses.

Only if your very existence is defined by your ability to "fuck" without any responsibility attached to the act - a rather childish expectation, I would think.

A little birth control is far more empowering than relying on abortion for fucking without consequence.

----------------------------------------

Most of us want to be able to fuck without consequences. There's nothing wrong with that.

Sex is actually enjoyable, and guess what? Women get to enjoy sex as well and there's nothing wrong with that either.

There's nothing childish about wanted to fuck without producing offspring.