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

I'm sure 'brearable arms' is covered in an Uncle Remus story somewhere...

 

Then liberals will never see it

 

I see you have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation, and you know it. Surprise.

 

When did the court rule on this?
Cite the case and text.
In fact, you cannot cite any ruling from the SCotUS that holds the 2nd does not protect a particular class of firearm, as you claim.

 

You didn’t answer the question. Can I own a machine gun made after 1986?

I quoted it twice. Dc v Heller.

 

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I specifically excluded nukes from my definition of an arm protected by the 2nd Amendment. I don't like ignoring people but you are either carelessly skimming my posts to look for an argument or you are trolling.

 

Uh, yeah, we know all that. We are discussing what the Second Amendment means and what it's limits are, if any. No serious constitutional scholar on the left or the right believes you can "just read it!" and know how the text applies in every situation.

 

Okay, first of all, "unsuitability" is a policy issue, or what con lawyers call a matter of "prudence." Constitutionality is completely different.

I don't personally care whether you own an AR10 or an AR15. Nor would I vote to ban either if I were in the legislature. Nor do I believe the states or the national government can constitutionally ban them.

So I don't know what you're point is. You must have taken me for someone who wants to take away your guns. I don't. But that doesn't mean that I am ready to go to postal if the government bans or requires licensure for fully automatic weapons, RPG's, or bazookas, for reasons I'm getting tired of giving.

 

Muskets - the Constitutional firearm.

 

Yes, we can cite such a ruling. (Why don't you politely ask whether something can be done before declaring that it cannot?)

The Miller case specifically said that prohibitions against sawed off shotguns do not violate the Second Amendment. This was decades ago. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). the same logic of Miller applies to machine guns, bazookas, howitzers, nukes, etc.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Look, if we can't at least agree that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide what the constitution means, there is really no point in debating you. You can disagree with them of course, but what are you going to do, complain to the Hague?

 

I had to select 'other' as 'all the above' included 'none of the above'.
The second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Perhaps a semi colon should have been employed between the text in red and the text in blue for clarity.
No government is capable of protecting each and every individual 24/7, therefore the second Amendment does not grant but instead recognizes that it is the right of each individual to protect themselves when or if ever the need should arise. The right to 'keep' and 'bear' arms does not limit the type of arms although I would have no problem with government denying certain weapons which cannot be hidden from view being carried in public. Keep your RPG's and machine guns at home unless they're actually needed to maintain the security of a free State as stated in the red portion of the second Amendment.
When the second Amendment was written, we did not have a large standing Army, and likely today it would not be possible to create a 'well regulated Militia for the security of a free State' as the battle would likely be between members of the same State with opposing political views. None the less, both sides have a right to keep and bear arms with the result being the spoils acquired by the victors.
Government has no rights above that of law abiding citizens, and should not create so called preemptive laws but only laws defining what the majority of citizens deem to be unacceptable in ways that harm another and punish those who ignore such laws.

 

Miller dealt with a particular type of firearm, not a particular class of firearm. There is a significant difference between the two standards.

 

Miller addressed one, and only one, specific type of firearm. It did not address, nor did it even attempt to address a specific class of firearms. The passage of "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" does not, in any way, suggest that firearms which are perfectly legal for the public to own can be limited or restricted in the same manner as weapons covered and defined by the national firearms act.

 

The united state supreme court has ruled otherwise, thus rendering the claim not only incorrect and irrelevant, it was discarded entirely as being frivolous.

 

I just quoted the supreme court telling you that they can be and are restricted.

 

This seems like pettifogging. What is your point?

 

Said no person educated on the issue, ever.

 

Cite the text in Heller that holds the 2nd does not protect the right of the people to keep and bear a particular class of firearm, as per your claim.

 

Because I am fully aware of the holding in Miller.

Specifically, Miller stated:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

This is not a statement by the court that the 2nd does not protect the right to keep and bear such a shotgun, but a statement that it cannot say it does protect such a firearm due to lack of evidence to that effect.

And thus, no citation is possible, as I said.

 

asked and answered.

 

And so, you cannot cite a holding by the court that states the 2nd does not protect the right to keep and bear a specific class of firearm
As I thought.
Congrats on your return to the pit.

 

this is a terrible attempt at semantics.

 

Does the Supreme Court always rule correctly on every issue?

Have there been any Supreme Court rulings that have been overturned in the last 200+ years?

 

I literally just gave it to you. Deleting it from your reply won't make it go away, lol.

 

I don't think they do. but that's irrelevant.

by amendment, yes.