I wonder if the atrocities directed against unarmed Israeli civilians

Via....the constitution.
So it cant ban anything i consider a "arms" right?

 

Clever, and at the same time idiotic, that you'd like pepper spray with fentanyl, as if any kind of equivalence applies.

 

If it keeps the government outta ur business, why not?
Sure, lets say someone runs a Cocaine shiv company. The only hoops they need jump through are the same as if someone were at a gun show right?

 

from studying the second amendment for 45 years
from lecturing on the second amendment in several ABA accredited law schools including the U of Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky University, and Cornell.
from holding a major league law degree since 1984

 

So what criteria excludes my examples from consideration as "arms"?

 

because they are not arms a citizen would normally keep and bear. your issue would be under the tenth amendment.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

Not even close.

 

Normally...how is that legally determined?
Its not normal because its unconstitutionally banned.

 

Sounds like you are making an argument for the automatic weapons ban.

 

what exactly is your point. Here is my bright line-do civilian police officers use a certain arm in civilian environments? if so-that arm and those functionally the same are protected. Is it the standard issue individual arm of a national guardsmen? If so it is protected. Is it designed to destroy an area rather than engage individual targets? if so, it most likely is not protected.

 

How can you possibly get that from what he posted

 

Technically, it already exists: a federal license is required to possess fully automatic firearms.

 

which is clearly unconstitutional under the second, tenth and even the idiotic Miller decision. they uphold the tax stamp on a sawn off shotgun-the application to military rifles seemed to be disfavored. hopefully the USSC will strike down the idiotic 1934 NFA since it clearly violates Bruen

 

Exactly!

 

From Caetano v Massachusetts:

"Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581."

 

"...in common use for lawful purposes."

 

So uncommon weapons are out.
How are 3d printed guns allowed then? They were never common, and far less common drugs or vehicles. Yet the later require permits and extra taxes.

 

you seem to confuse how guns are made vs their use. for example, semi auto handguns are in common use for lawful purposes. so clearly it doesn't matter if they are made by machining, casting, or 3D printing.

 

So if i make em out of cocaine? Have hemp parts, etc

 

why ask clearly frivolous questions. You cannot make a crucifix out of cocaine and claim religious freedom. You cannot ravish 72 virgins and defend against rape charges by claiming Allah allows it. You cannot marry 12 women (in most states) and defend on the grounds that you claim to be a Mormon. You cannot sacrifice children-or goats for that matter-and say Ba'al told you to do it

 

The US government has no constitutional authority to ban guns. Even guns made out of cocaine.

 

Maybe if I lived in Israel, the ability to fend off an unprecedented attack that may never happen again may outweigh the increased risk of suicide, homicide, or accident from owning a firearm at home... na, probably not. I do have to say it would shift the balance closer to being a good idea, though, and not clearly a bad idea like in the US.

 

well we certainly support your right to NOT own guns based on your own analysis that you are more likely to commit suicide, shoot someone accidentally or have the gun used against you than you are to stop a violent attack upon you or your family. However, many of us tire of those who see guns as an unacceptable risk, telling us we shouldn't own them

 

Well, as I said, the anti-gunners will ignore, or deny these realities.