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

Sorry but c130s can do it and pilots practice nap of earth flying. Even military radars have a limit of the lowest altitude at which they can track aircraft. This is because the radar signal will also reflect off of the ground and objects on the ground, causing interference. This is called clutter and can be avoided by Doppler radars that detect velocity. The concept of the radar horizon determines the point at which clutter will no longer affect the radar.

The SA-6 air defense system can engage targets using radar down to 100m, and the SA-8 can engage down to 10m. These are both short range systems, though (less than 30km).

 

Well federal law dictates that marijuana is illegal so why do some states make it legal? Probably same principal.

 

Come on, guy, that forms no part of the Heller holding! It's just a concession made by a lawyer for the Respondent during argument. It means he is not arguing against licensing by the District of Columbia. The court just noted it to more clearly ascertain what relief the Respondent (gun owner) wanted. That's different from the court itself laying down a rule.

 

What of the matter of the drug cartels of the nation of Mexico constructing operational submarines?

 

you've been shown otherwise.

 

they also said restrictions and bans on dangerous weapons is constitutional.

 

Smugglers of various sorts using various means have existed for centuries... millennia
This may be concerning, it is not an invasion.... armed citizens are not preventing the problem

 

The point of the original post, is that the drug cartels of the nation of Mexico apparently possess both the skill, and the resources, necessary to construct operational submarines. If such is within their skill set, it must be questioned just what they cannot do.

 

Incorrect. The united state supreme court stated dangerous and unusual. The Caetano ruling expanded on this, and stated such was to be read together as a single standard of consideration, rather than as two standards being read individually and/or interchangeably.

 

What they cannot do is to conduct an amphibious or airborne assault which the army could not handle and instead would be repelled by armed citizens

This has nothing to do with gun rights
I just do not accept the arguement that our national defense relies upon armed citizens

 

lol, I quoted them.

 

Which does not change the fact that the quotation by yourself is incorrect. In Caetano they said the standard is dangerous and unusual, not merely dangerous or unusual. There is a significant difference between the two. The state of New Jersey attempted to claim that stun guns could be prohibited due to their being unusual under Heller and the united state supreme court explained in detail how their argument was incorrect.

 

That is exactly what it said - the terms are conjunctive.
It also said that "dangerous" in the context of Heller meant something substantially more dramatic than the "danger" inherent to firearms.

 

it s the supreme courts quotation. Better let them know, lol.

 

already cited. DC v Heller.

 

<Rule 2>
Quote the text.

 

I’ve quoted it a dozen times. You like to quote my posts which contain it, them edit it out.

 

None of which changes the fact that your understanding of what the quotations actually mean, is incorrect.

 

No it isn’t. Which is why you don’t have any nukes, or machine guns after 86.

 

Neither of which were ever addressed by Heller, McDonald, or Caetano, thus meaning they do not authorize either.

 

the supreme court stated otherwise.

 

<Rule 2> Heller says no such thing.

 

<Reply to Deleted> you've been given the quote from heller a dozen times in this thread.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

Nowhere does Heller support the statement that a ban on dangerous weapons is constitutional.
Heller speaks of "dangerous and unusual weapons", which is not the same thing.
<Rule 2/3>

 

Lol, I just quoted them saying so.

<Reply to Deleted>