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

No. You quoted them talking about "Dangerous and unusual" weapons.
Not "dangerous" weapons.
<Rule 2/3>

 

lol, what a pathetic attempt at semantics.

 

It is not a matter of semantics, but rather a matter of the law itself. A matter that was addressed in Caetano.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on both grounds.

1

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cas t at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.

Your argument is invalid, and has been proven as such. Do not repeat it again.

 

Whoa! A gauntlet!!

 

maybe you should argue for the right to bear those. The rest of us seem ok with firearms as historically interpreted but if you get grenades, Im gonna need more firearms.

 

Your deliberate effort to ignore the full text of what the court said is, at best, dishonest.
But, you know this.

 

lol, no my argument stands. You can't own nukes or machine guns after 86.

And it's semantics.

 

but of course you know you are playing a silly game of semantics. you were given the ruling from heller. It's why you don't have any nukes, or machine guns made after 1986.

 

Heller spoke on neither, therefore Heller authorized neither. Such is how the law works in the united states.

Except for the simple fact that the united state supreme court does not deal in matters of semantics. They specified dangerous and unusual for a reason, rather than dangerous or unusual. Nothing claimed to the contrary by yourself, or anyone else, will be able to actually change that fact.

 

The Supreme Court justices disagree even amongst themselves deciding what a previous opinion really meant for future cases, so goo luck getting to the bottom of it.

 

They specifically note that prohibitions and bans on those weapons are not in doubt.

And the semantic game you guys are playing doesn't change the fact that prohibitions on nukes, and machine guns after 86 is constitutional.

 

Then actually cite such. Quote the exact portion of the Heller ruling where the united state supreme court spoke of nuclear weapons. Show where the word actually appears in the ruling.

 

I have, repeatedly.

 

You know this statement is not true, and yet you chose to make it.

 

Incorrect. Nothing of the sort has been done by yourself even once in this entire discussion. There has been absolutely no citation on the part of yourself, of precisely where in the Heller ruling the word "nuclear" is even mentioned.

 

You know perfectly well it is true, yet you continue to lie about it

 

demonstrably correct.

 

You really can't even extrapolate this?

 

Since a civilian militia is meant to repel an invading force or go up against an unjust federal government, anything they got is fair game.

 

9mm is a good round. Plus it's a hell of a lot cheaper than .45acp ammo. Ouch!

 

Heller does not address either the Hughes amendment, or regulations pertaining to nuclear devices, therefore it does not support and validate either as being constitutional. The member Rahl claims to have cited the portion of Heller that specifically mentions the word "nuclear" but no such citation has ever been presented by himself. Until such time that the citation is either presented, or the claim is retracted, the question will continue to be presented.

 

I asked if you could extrapolate. It is completely unreasonable to say "It's an open question whether the state can restrict personal possession of an atomic bomb" if the Supreme Court already validated restrictions on machine guns. Yes, it's "open" in the sense that they haven't explicitly told you in so many words, but honestly ....

 

The difference is that the Hughes amendment prohibits the private ownership of newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms, even though such would be subject to the exact same restrictions and regulations as those that were available before the arbitrarily implemented cutoff date. There is no reason to believe that the Hughes amendment would ever survive a challenge of constitutionality with such facts being in evidence.

 

I consider it to means anything a soldier would use to arm himself\herself

guns, knives, you names it

I think it's crazy some states wont let a person put a Leatherman multi-tool in their pocket without it being considered a concealed weapon

 

Don't know what all that has to do with A-bombs, but okay.

I'm not going to review the whole thread to see if you guys have already discussed the Hollis v. Lynch machine gun case (I assume you have), but if you can't get three Bush appointees on the most conservative appellate court in the country to find a right to own a machine gun after 1986, and Hollis could not get a single judge to agree, and then you can't get the U.S. Supreme Court to even review that conservative circuit's decision, and Hollis again could not get the supreme court to even review the case, then you need to move on.

Even if all of these conservative, and largely pro-gun federal judges are wrong, which is the only argument you can possibly make at this point, they are undoubtedly empowered to be "wrong." We either accept their rulings as the last word or we start a new country and make a new constitution.