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

Per the constitution, yes.

 

You and I both know you argue from dishonesty; the difference is I will admit it.

 

Said no honest person familiar with current jurisprudence.

 

Not necessary the weapons we have can allow us to obtain the bigger ones.

 

While I have everything required not to make me a shitbird I agree.
You need arms sufficient enough to survive the first skirmish. The spoils go to the victor.
Obviously this is a concept not rooted in every possible contingency but I get a kick out of the preppers that store three tons of munitions and arms.
Survivability will be on foot by stealth IMO.

 

Yet you won't give the constitutional limits.
And must resort to personal attacks.
Shows you admit to losing your own argument.

 

Yes, have a small gun, use the gun to get a bigger gun and so on from there. It can be done and has been done before around the world. The idea the founders had was to give the people the ability to withstand the first fight should the government turn tyrannical or should we get invaded by a foreign government. I know it was just a movie but there is much truth in the movie Red Dawn. If we were to be invaded it would be the ordinary citizen who would encounter the enemy first not our military.

 

There are obvious limits on regular citizens being able to have their hands on classified and secret technology, weapons and information.

 

Defenders of the second amendment won't need it to overthrow the government. I think if anything, we will need our firearms to defend the government from a violent overthrow by Democrats. It would not require RPG's or much more than basic arms(handguns, rifles, shotguns) and the will to stand up and stand them down. The military will watch.

 

The founders knew about the most powerful weapons of war at their time and wanted the citizens to have access to them so they could resist the government if needed. Why would they all of a sudden not want us to have that ability today? So all weapons were intended to be protected.

Now after saying that we have to ask ourselves is that a right we want to have or should a Constitutional convention be called so that we can discuss our rights?

 

I did. They are in the OP.

 

So we should be able to have tanks if we can afford one. Per the constitution, I agree.
What if one is a good weapons designer, can they design their own secret technological weapon?

 

I missed it. Can you point it out specifically?
Why is the poll you are conducting showing most think there are no constitutional limits?

 

I thought it was up to and including a six pound cannon. Six pound being the weight of the ball.

 

Yes, an inventor could make his own Directed Energy Weapon using microwave or X-rays (the Japs tried to do this and failed). I would only hope they are loyal US citizens and not psychopaths. It would then be up to the Congress and the military to see if needed to be restricted.

A typically wealthy person who would buy a surplus tank or cannon would be one of the last people to use them to kill innocents in acts of terror. A person who would get inside a tank and terrorize others would be a deranged psychopath on a suicide mission. Cowards like the Vegas gunman Paddock would not be so bold. Here's what happened when a guy stole a tank even with no ammo:


As for large cannons, they are crew served weapons that are too big and obvious to use outside military applications:

 

No, you didn't.
You simply refuse to understand it.

 

And you refuse to explain it.
Where is the limit, per the constitution? I don't think you can. Because there is none.

 

This nonsense was already directly addressed by SCOTUS.

I guess the 1A doesn't apply to computers and cell phones.

 

I see nothing about the constitution, but laws circumventing it.

So, as you ask in the OP, please explain your response.

 

You haven't noticed that the topic asks others their opinion on the issue?
You believe nuclear weapons are protected by the Constitution; it is up to you to explain how, given current jurisprudence, they so qualify.
You know you cannot do so, and so have chosen to troll.

 

For you anti Constitutionalist liberals I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment covered the first machine gun that was developed in 1718.

May 15, 1718: First Machine Gun Patented by James Puckle!

A Brief History
On May 15, 1718, Englishman James Puckle patented his machine gun, the world’s first! You may have thought the Gatling gun or the Maxim machine gun was the first machine gun, but depending on how you define “machine gun” James Puckle, Esq. (yes, he was a lawyer) got there first... -> https://www.historyandheadlines.com/may-15-1718-first-machine-gun-patented-james-puckle/

The First “Assault Weapon”? Forgotten Weapons and the Puckle Gun of 1718


This gun will have liberals running for a safe space.

The Puckle Gun is one of those firearms of which only a couple of examples exist in the world, but which is covered in a great deal of introductory firearms books, usually in their section on the history of machine guns.

This has led many to assume the Puckle Gun was some kind of proto-machine gun, which isn’t exactly the case, although it is a very important historical step on the road to modern rapid-fire weaponry. Some discussion will follow below, but first, Forgotten Weapons released an installment on the partial original Puckle Gun located at Reed Knight’s Institute of Military Technology:

 

I voted no as to semi autos and machine guns. If we are to rely on the 2nd Amendment, as written, then we need to give the words a reasonable interpretation as the framers would have understood them. I don't think they envisioned semi auto and machine guns. I guess the same could be said of bolt action weapons, but those fire one shot at a time, as did muskets.

 

You saw the part where "bearable arms" are not limited to weapons available in the time of the founders, right?

If the "well regulated" militia is to be effective, does its members need muskets or AR15s?

 

Sure. I specifically included bolt action rifles as reasonably equivalent to what the founders envisioned. I'll add automatic shotguns, though I think a plug limiting its capacity to 3-5 shells is reasonable.

Nukes weren't available at the time of the founders, but I think it an exaggeration to call a nuke in a suitcase an "arm." Agree?

So we draw lines. I say the line should be drawn at something functionally equivalent to what a single citizen in support of his militia, in those days, could carry. Machine guns go beyond the line would draw. Semi-autos is a closer call. Semi autos with small magazines, I don't know, 10 rounds, I would vote to allow.

 

I have said why.

Laws can go for or against the constitution. If society deems it ok. So that means there are lines drawn by society.