The second amendment is irrelevant-

[digonswine]

105. This is complicated-

I did not read the entire decision. I know the vote was close. I guess this is one issue we all have with the system-one vote another way and the Bill of Rights says something else. It seems a bit arbitrary, but this is the system we have and I can't pretend to have an infinitely better system to suggest to interpret it-certainly not a popular vote.
I think that does bother me.
I would like it to not be necessary to make decisions this way. I would like, in my pretend world, to make decisions purely on what is right or wrong for people. For me, it has much more meaning and is more defensible than pointing to a 5-4 decision by the Supreme court. A different president, a different appointee, a different result. It kind of stinks and seems too random.
I am not even saying I disagree with that decision and these feelings go beyond that decision and this topic.
I did ask for a better legal argument, though-and even though I don't like how this one comes about, it is what we've got. Reality and all.
Anyway-I think of a straw-man as an argument based on the intentional misrepresentation of another's view on the subject. To quibble a bit-this is only a straw-man if that person does not take that position. But many do. I guess it is bound by who is in on the discussion.
If represented your argument in that way, it would be a straw-man. But for someone else, it might not be.