What constitutes a "brearable arm" as thet term is used with regard to the 2nd?

You left out the part of hellar where the court specifically states that limits can be placed on firearms.

 

As a proud owner of and passable competitor with the M1A, I agree.
The AR is easier to shoot well, but the M1A ultimately shoots better.

 

NO. They never even drew up the process for letting people leave.
They all voted to leave, and they're keeping them stuck in limbo under the guise of, "we're figuring out the process", which is really code for,"until you give up trying."

To give up your firearms is to sign your soul over to statists. The government keeps theirs.

And of course, your post gets a like.

A leftist who knows what they're talking about - wouldn't be a leftist.

 

Listen to to what Judge Napolitano states about about Unalienable Rights, and the Second Amendment as well as the Commerce Clause:

 

Those aren't exaggerations. They are seeing where the line in the sand gets drawn.
There is no limits per the USA constitution. Only what society wants to make illegal.

 

Are those just laws restricting certain things from the constitutional rights?

 

And so, you agree: the right of the people to keep and bear all classes of firearms is protected by the 2nd.
Thank you

 

I've said that throughout this thread. <Mod Edit>
I think you even agreed with me on this earlier in this thread as well.

 

So what you are saying is that a person can own a nuclear weapon, which is not true because nuclear weapons are defined as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which unlike an automatic bearable arm, is not bearable, meaning that you cannot tote such a weapon without the aid and assistance of an extremely large transportation mechanism that would require the participation of the transportation authorities of the many states that you are going to utilize through necessity.

 

I applaud your use of the ad hom in place of a meaningful response - proof positive you have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Well done.

 

My response is that what I think does not matter

Nor does what you think matter

5 unelected demigods on the supreme court will make that decision

 

TOG 6,

Dairyair is not talking about bearable arms in his post; he is referring to nuclear weapons and other tools of unimaginable destruction. I take his post as mockery and instigation against the Second Amendment. I could be wrong, but my “Spidey sense” tells me that I am correct.

 

no. They are part of the constitution that gives the federal government broad authority to regulate items like firearms, drugs etc.

 

but we know the government is allowed to restrict owning certain classes of firearms, and scotus agrees.

 

As long as she agrees that the 2nd protects all classes or firearms -- which she apparently has - I don't care how far toward the lunatic fringe she takes her argument, or for what purpose.

I do wonder, however, why I haven't seen her opposition to the usual leftists bleats for bans on 'assault weapons' after shootings like LV, Orlando, etc.

 

If you wanted to avoid the issue entirely, you could have simply not posted.

 

I wish our opinion mattered

But it does not

 

but we know from the SCOTUS that the 2nd doesn't protect all classes of firearms.

 

This is a false statement, deliberately made.

 

can I own a machine gun made after 1986?

the answer is of course no. And you purposefully left out the part in hellar where the court says that restrictions are perfectly constitutional.

but we both know you'll end up pretending reality is other than what it is, and you'll inevitably pretend to pick up your ball and go home by pretending you've put me on ignore.

 

Some time, early in the history of the Federals,
there were cases of private ownership of cannon.
I vaguely remember in some cases, private ownership of a cannon was denied.

Does anyone know anything of this history, or more handy than my recent attempts to link it.

As a fan of history (not herstory) the above consideration might be a stimulating stepping stone in today's discussion. When did the Federals first limit any gun powder powered weapon as not included in the 2nd.


Moi
High crime the unlawful discharge of a firearm.
Not the carrying, open or concealed.
No license. No registration.
Yes to back ground check, deleted if approved. No record.

r > g

​

Cannon. Maybe because one cannot bear it. Where bear means to carry.
choose your link https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=bare+definition+carry

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

 

Cite where such was stated.

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

The united state supreme court did not, in your own words, specifically state that limits can be placed on firearms. Nor do pages fifty four through fifty six state what is being claimed by yourself. There is certainly nothing found within the cited portion that would suggest firearms that are in common use are able to be limited, especially when exactly what those limitations are, are not defined in anything resembling a coherent manner.

 

Lol, I literally just quoted them saying that.

Again, I literally just cited the court saying exactly that.