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

US Code specifically defines the 'unorganized militia' as all able-bodied male citizens (or those intent to become citizens) between 18 and 40(ish) who are not in the National Guard or active military.

As far as the purposes of the 2A are concerned, we can logically extend 'the unorganized militia' to encompass women, the elderly and the disabled as any attempt to disarm those groups would be political suicide.

terms like 'organize' and 'regulate' have very specific meanings in the legal setting, and they often dont translate to the common usage that we use in every day speech.

 

All weapons are protected under the constitution. To limit any weapon is not following the constitution. Even if the USSC rules against constitutional rights.

 

They also knew about cannons.
I'd like to know when in American history was a private individual denied the right to own a cannon.

 

I answered the poll, I said "machine guns" as they were the only type of firearms that is putatively denied to most people. I should have said other or none, as the point I was trying to make is that there isn't any militia. It may exist on paper but on paper you have to stop every 250 feet and send up a flare when operating a motor vehicle in Illinois ( I think, it may be another State and it may be greater or lesser than 250 feet. the point is that there are lots of archaic laws around and the militias are just one.)

Thank you for the nice compliment in any case. I remember a teacher in HS said I had "a certain low cunning."

 

Our local VFW had to stopper the barrels of the AA guns they put on their front lawn. They were pissed.

 

I think Privateers were forbidden by the Treaty of Vienna, we weren't a signatory but neither could we oppose the entirety of the Congress of Vienna

 

Thank you for your nonsense.

 

This has already happened -- see the cites posted in the OP.
Thus, the question of what constitutes 'bearable arms'. The cites provided negate your position, outright.

 

So you agree - 'assault weapon' bans as well as the NFA act of 1934 violate the constitution.
Good to know.

 

This point is irrelevant to the the discussion of the 2nd, as noted in the OP.
But, thank you for answering the question.

 

Does the constitution restrict what arms a person can bear?
And nuclear weapons fall into the category of arms. Glad to know you agree. Which it seems you've been telling me in the past that people can't do that per the constitution. But this is your 1st admission, I think, that you think people can own nuclear devices as arms.

 

I see you are ignorant to the jurisprodence regarding the subject. Please refer to the OP for enlightenment.
After doing that, please present a sound argument for the inclusion of nuclear weapons as bearable arms as the term is used with regard to the 2nd.
I accept your concession on this point in advance.

Meanwhile, I look forward to your defense of 'assault weapons' against laws which seek to ban them.

 

OK. Where is the limit from the constitution?

 

You may as well include anthrax, sarin gas and other weapons of mass destruction to your analogy.

However, Marxist enclaves in the US such as Chicago, NYC and Washington DC do not want an honest, legal citizen to own, and certainly bear even a basic, single shot rifle, musket or pistol from the Founder's time.

They should start by allowing at least these weapons to be carried as they were back in 1789. A long Kentucky rifle is almost impossible to conceal, and virtually all guns of this era only fire one shot and are very slow to reload.

No assassin or criminal today would bother using one of these obsolete weapons on their victims.

Please give me any reason why legal honest citizens should not be able to have one of the old, operational arms in their homes, ready to use, or carry on the streets.

 

I asked TOG6, so I ask you. Where does the constitution limit those?

 

As an Orginalist, I would say "arms" would mean every single arms used by militia men circa the last 1700's in the US. From there I would logically conclude they now be the same standard MBR rifles and handguns used by our armed forces: M-4's, M-9's and so forth. They would not include secret technology or weapons of mass destruction, as Washington and Jefferson would not have wanted the savages their were fighting on the Western Frontier the entire time of their lives to get their hands on Sarin gas or a portable nuke if they were available back then.

From this basic starting point, I would include operational surplus tanks, cannons, bazookas and grenade launchers----if the owner were part of a militia or military group that supported the US and our Constitution and Bill of Rights as originally intended.

However, the best way forward for increased public safety in the US is not quibbling about this or that weapon to be legalized, it is to clamp down on immigration for people who do not share the same Western Culture and values that America has had. If you want America to look more like Somalia, Syria, and Mexico, then have more people immigrate from there.

 

What they were thinking about was weapons comparable to the military in case they would need to be used against a military.

 

As I said:
I accept your concession on this point in advance.

 

Is that your long winded way of saying, NO, there are no constitutional limits?

 

I see. There is no constitutional limit.

 

To include tanks, grenades, nuclear weapons, or others as well?

 

You may choose to express your ignorance if you wish - in fact, I encourage it.

 

As found in the OP. Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

In fact you've never given a single point in the constitution limiting arms people can bear.
You have something or not? So far, it's no.

 

In which case rpgs, sub machine guns and shoulder fired anti aircraft. Missles and hand grenades should be available on the internet or at walmart.