You don't do this, but any arguments by any anti-gunners regarding US v. Miller should be taken as "arguing in bad faith" immediately - the "why?" becomes obvio

You don't do this, but any arguments by any anti-gunners regarding US v. Miller should be taken as "arguing in bad faith" immediately - the "why?" becomes obvious as soon as you look at the circumstances of the case and quotations in the ruling. Basically, if the court had been told (i.e. someone had actually been present to argue, which your attorney won't do if you disappear and stuff) that an NFA weapon was of the kind used by the militia/military it should've come out differently. The court said: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Judicial notice is messy but given it was a criminal case, with a right to argue about everything that might be used to convict, a competent lawyer - hell, even an incompetent lawyer - should have challenged everything, and by that time "trench guns" from WW1 would have certainly, easily been identifiable as the kind of weapon suitable for militia use.