Nah you made up stuff that ignores the obvious and accentuates the irrelevant. You also completely avoid the entire context in which the second was created and its relationship with the rest of the bill of rights, and Article One Section Eight
Heller says 2A can be regulated. Moreover, the intent of 2A wasn't about scope, 'keep and bear arms' is an expression, not a constraint.
He thinks the second amendment is about what the citizens can do versus what the government cannot do
Small nukes are 'bearable' so are bazookas, 50 cal machine guns, machine guns in general. 'Bearable' isn't absolute, there is room for regulation.
The smallest nuclear weapon ever made weighs 300 pounds. A bazooka is a crew served weapon. A 50 caliber machine gun is a crew served weapon, weighs 84 pounds and can't be be fired by hand. Automatic weapons that can be shoulder fire, by a single person, from the shoulder, or by hand are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
About the same as a mortar. fully automatic weapons are highly regulated, which goes back to my original point.
Surely you are kidding? Many volunteer fire departments owned their own fire trucks. To not own them would not make any sense.
Adams mentioned it within the context of a broader statement whose full quote you truncated, but does that equal 'discussed'? Hardly. Nor does it equal 'settled argument' (it wasn't a settled argument until Heller, some 233 or so years into the future). What the bulk of the debate at the constitution ratification convention regarding the second amendment was that the antifederalists feared that the new constitution would empower the new congress to subsume state militias into a standing army, which was anathema to the anti-feds and anathema to Virginia, whose signature they needed to ratify the constitution, to which Virginia got the federalists to change the wording of the second amendment from 'country' to 'state'. Virginia needed the militias for 1. General policing. 2. State defense, 3, slave patrols. And #3 was the big one, because Virginia was largely a plantation economy. I realize it's debatable, but it is a merit worthy argument that, but for slavery, there might not have been the second amendment insofar as the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" verbiage.
Pay particular attention to how I word my argument: The issue of the individual right to 'keep and bear arms' was NEVER a 'settled argument' (I mean fully settled) until Heller. If that weren't true, the lower courts would have reversed the Wash DC law banning handguns in '75 and the SC wouldn't have granted cert. So, let's break it down even further: Pre-Heller Interpretation: Prior to the Heller decision, there was indeed significant debate and lack of clarity regarding whether the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own firearms or if this right was tied exclusively to service in a state militia. Different courts had varied interpretations, and there wasn't a definitive Supreme Court ruling on this specific issue. Heller Decision's Impact: In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court explicitly interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to possess firearms independent of service in a militia. This was the first time the Court had directly and conclusively addressed this aspect of the Second Amendment at such a high level. Lower Courts and Washington D.C. Law: So, my point about the lower courts and the Washington D.C. handgun ban is important. The fact that lower courts upheld the D.C. law, and the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari (agree to hear the case), indicates that there was a significant legal question to be resolved. The Supreme Court's decision to take the case underscores the lack of settled law on this issue at the time. Post-Heller Landscape: The Heller decision fundamentally changed the legal landscape regarding the Second Amendment. It settled a long-standing debate (which clearly existed for the aforementioned reasons) by affirming an individual right to bear arms, influencing subsequent legal challenges and interpretations related to gun control laws.
There's nothing to argue. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only legal way to change that is to amend the Constitution. I doubt slavery had much, if any to do with it. There were other, more direct and immediate threats to be concerned with.
It was sarcasm. No surprise that you missed it...lol But, by your logic, a disarmed militia is the same as a fire department with no fire truck.
Exactly. That's why murder, assault, reckless discharge, brandishing, etc. are illegal. Gun ownership is regulated. However, regulations limiting carrying and owning a gun are unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment isn't unlimited, but there are no outlawed, or banned words in our criminal code. Cars are heavily regulated, but it's legal to buy a car that can do 100 mph+, when the highest speed limit on any public road is the country is only 85 mph. The highest speed limit on any public road is 85 mph, but on private property a person is allowed to drive as fast as they want. There are no speed limits on private property.
