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

You got to be able to hump the terrain covering ground quickly carrying both the arm and the ammo.

 

But... those day aren't these days. Do you believe the militia, today, would be effective if limited to bolt-action rifles?
If so, why?

 

I must have missed it, as I am sure it would have had me on the floor laughing. Please cite the post.

 

Apparently not.

 

Depends on what they are called out for, so it's impossible to answer comprehensively. If my hometown were invaded by the North Korean army, then no. If it was to help the police stop looters engaging in riot, I think I could do a lot with a bolt action rifle. I'm a good shot.

 

Yes

 

The Bill of Rights doesn't limit any rights, it articulates them. What they mean and how far they reach is for us to work out through laws and court challenges. The First Amendment, for example, doesn't say you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but you can't.

 

Many of us are confusing rights with policy preferences. It doesn't really matter whether I "want" convicted murderers to have guns (I don't), the question is whether we can say collectively, through legislation, that the murderer has forfeited his right to have a gun.

Same with Free Speech. The constitution doesn't limit your right to speak out in favor of child prostitution. But your day care license will be revoked if you make that part of the curriculum. You can explain this under a doctrine called "abuse of rights."

 

I hope you mean "all weapons," but in any case, I disagree. Cannons weren't portable in those days and still aren't. So they don't qualify as "arms" under any reasonably acceptation of the term. One could not commit mass destruction with the "arms" as the framers understood the term. This is why I am perfectly comfortable in my belief that the 2nd amendment permits of limits on machine guns, RPG's, bazookas, nukes, and even magazine capacity. I'm unsure about semi-automatic weapons. They qualify as arms but can be weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a skilled shooter, so I'm conflicted -- not as a matter of policy, I mean as a matter of constitutional law.

 

It doesn't matter.
There is no debate.
Britain can't leave the EU because they gave up their firearms.

The proof glows from across the pond.
ANY American can surely register that.

 

But private citizens owned cannons during the writing of the 2nd and after and those were the most destructive weapons know to man at that time. In fact the confiscation of those types of arms precipitated Concord and Lexington. Oh and by the way it is not illegal to own a cannon in the United Stated. But explosive shells are regulated since 1934.

 

I am confused didnt they leave?

 

Glad to know it. It leaves me with the question of whether the Framers meant to protect ownership of those cannon as a matter of "right."

I certainly wouldn't argue that the 2nd amendment prohibits possession of cannon, or even nukes.

Note too that one has the right to "bear" arms. Does this mean keeping a cannon in your garage? I dont mean an antique, but rather a modern piece that can lob a shell 20 miles?

Well regulated militia ....

 

Well if they did not intend for the citizens to have the means to physically defend themselves from the government how was the citizen then supposed to defend them selves from any government? From the perspective of those men the country was to rely on the citizen soldier for all types of defense both external and internal unless under extreme emergencies. We were suppose to form militias, arm them, and train for emergencies. How was one to have an effective militia if they could not acquire modern arms of equivalent quality as the regular armies of the time?

 

I agree. But you can't get the other 2 I asked to say that. They are afraid of making that true statement.

 

I think at this point, it matters little, what the framers intended. We have no real way of knowing.
All we can deal with is the here and now. And the foreseeable future.

 

You are correct in stating what you have and t is in agreement with my statement about being about to tote a weapon without the aid of a cart, wagon, or tractor. Of course you need ammunition because a firearm is useless with out such accouterment.

 

Sorry... I don't see your post number. Please try again.

 

The only person who refuses to address the truth here is you.

 

OK...
Consider too, the 2nd protects the right to own and use a firearm for the traditionally laws purposes for same - that is, not just for service in the militia.

Aside from fowl/bird hunting, is there such a use where the AR10/15 platform is unsuitable?
And then, if said platform is suited for those uses, how are firearms built on that platform not 'bearable arms'?

 

My view is that arms should be considered any weapon that can be used effectively by a single person and doesn't involve a tripod/vehicle mount, or explosives/rockets.

 

Seriously, a nuclear weapon? I thought that the discussion is about bearable arms, meaning bearable firearms. Who in their right, reasonable mind would want a nuclear weapon? You have obviously taken this discussion to new lows with your comment about nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is neither bearable nor easily acquired by the average person of any nation, so why on Earth would you include it in the discussion. It is equivalent to people including tanks, helicopters and Howlitzers in the discussion. If you find it difficult to remain focused and develop the desire to include exaggerations, just step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and begin to meditate about the Easter Bunny or something. I know that guns get people like you excited which is why I suggested the Easter Bunny.

 

Supreme Law of the Land, i.e., It supersedes any law of any state or territory that contradicts it.

Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of [North] America settles any issue or discussion about making laws to define what is contained therein.

 

They need M-14's.

 

commerce clause and general welfare clause. It's why you can't own nukes, or machine guns made after 1986.