NRA

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

"We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need."

Come on, you can do better than that. You aren't likely to kill anyone going for a walk. If, however, you want to get you hands on something inherently dangerous (say dynamite for blasting, or anthrax for research), you absolutely have to show justifiable need. Most rational people are OK with those laws.

Are you saying you're an anarchist now?

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

All other things being equal, you can kill more people with an AR-15 than you can with a handgun. I don't need data to convince me of that. I know it's true. Most of the cops I saw storming that school had rifles in their hands, not handguns. Why is that? JD, why is that?

I'm not saying we'll all live forever if we impose such a ban. I'm not even saying I support such a ban. I just think we need to have a serious conversation on the subject, one that is guided by common sense rather than radical ideology or outright jibberish.

I'll say again, any impact of gun legislation is going to be very minor. More good can be done by talking about re-instilling traditional family values, and by discussing the garbage that's on TV, in movies, and in video games.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?


With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.


I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

"I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco"

Fine, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco all you like, because it plays into my argument, not yours. Just like with pools, there are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use that are designed to promote public safety. Is this news to you? Age restrictions, can't drink and drive, bars are required not to give you too much, can't smoke in public places where you can harm others...Notice a pattern here? These are all examples of society putting limits on our freedoms, in the interest of public safety. That's what I'm talking about here.

""Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use "

Maybe, maybe not. Currently, as a society, we have collectively decided that the freedom to choose to smoke is more important than the lives that would be saved if we banned smoking. What I'm saying is, we should have that discussion with these weapons, without caving in to radical ideology or NRA lobbying pressure. Let's have a common sense discussion of the pros and cons. I agree thare are cons to banning anything. What I'm stunned by, is the resistance to the notion that there are potential pros to banning these things.

" If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons"

Perhaps you're not reading well lately. Because I have said multiple times on this thread that we can't use public safety as an excuse to trample the constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

I know the AR-15 isn't categorized as an assault weapon. What I'm saying is, we should look to see if there are things that serve no legitimate societal need (like, maybe, high capacity magazines) which if banned, might save a few lives.

"Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?"

I would not support unconstitutional bans to save 100 lives. I might support constitutional bans that save 1 or 2 lives. I can only assume that you can't differentiate between those two things, because you keep trying to refute me by citing inane hypotheticals that would be broadly perceived as trampling the constitution.

If you want to refute me, explain why banning high capacity magazines is in violation of the second amendment.

I never said banning these weapons would save more lives than any other possible bans of other actions or products. I never said banning these weapons would allow all of us to live forever. I have repeatedly said that the impact would be minimal. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much. I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

"A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens."

I disagree. If something is made illegal, not every single person who wishes they could get one illegally, would be able to get one. Obviously, I would never say that bans cannot be circumvented. But you seem to be saying the opposite, that bans cannot even reduce access to these weapons. I can't believe that's true.

"How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook?"

Not so well. Which is precisely why we need to have the conversation about whether or not things can be improved.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.

I'm guessing the true answer is somewhere in between. If we get to that place, maybe (and maybe not) we can come up with policies that make our kids safer.

And you have me completely on the automatic weapons, I didn't think they were legal for civilians.

"What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable "

Unacceptable to you. To me, if we can save a few lives and not trample the constitution, I say let's do it.

"When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked? "

Rarely. But your characterization of this as a "sweeping ban" is, in my opinion, inappropriate. 99% of Americans have zero interest in owning these things. Banning cars would be a "sweeping ban", because it would limit constitutional freedoms for just about everyone.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

Jim, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government can choose which types of arms you can bear. It prohibits that government from denying you the right to bear "arms" not which type of arms. The Constitution is basically, as Obama likes to say, a charter of negative liberties. It denies the Federal Government, and to some extent even state governments, all liberties except those specifically granted to it. If it does not grant the gvt. freedom to legislate on a matter, the gvt. cannot do so. There are no provisions in the Constitution, neither in the defined powers granted to the central government, nor in the enumerations within those powers to violate your right to bear arms. Of course, the Constitution has, as you say, been trampled, so what the heck, keep on trampling.

We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and . . .

Collectively banning rather than doing so by ammendment is the type of danger that the Constitution attempted to avert. Collective banning of constitutional rights is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Collective rule rather than the rule of law is the reason the Founders chose a republic rather than a democracy.

Jim, I understand very well your objections to private ownership of certain weapons. But, even though you have not given any credence to it, the expressed reason for the second ammendment was none of the things you cite. You are, apparently, reluctant to include that reason in what you consider a "serious discussion."

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. It is a pre-existing, fully retained, fundamental right and as such, any law challenged as being a violation of the right is presumed unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause.

You shouldn't be so cock-sure . . . Many, many, many laws stand now as "presumptively lawful" as they have not yet been challenged under Heller (2008). For 70 years laws were upheld using the lower federal court "militia right" or "state's right" or generic "collective right" inventions / mutations / perversions that were invalidated by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Also, many also were upheld pre-McDonald (2010) because it was held that the federal 2nd Amendment did not impede state legislatures (also a legal doctrine now invalidated).

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures ) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

• A type in common use at the present time and/or
• A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much.

That seems to be much more than Feinstein and Biden are willing to stipulate. Thanks a lot . . .

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

Well, if anything really speaks to a mature and reasoned discussion it is ^that^.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

You "might" want to learn about fundamental rights and strict scrutiny. You "might" learn that "might" isn't part of the mix. . . .

[spence]

[QUOTE=ReelinRod;978147]
The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.[/SIZE]

This + This

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms.

= Contradiction.

-spence

[likwid]

holy crap did someone actually read dc vs heller?

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;980906]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.[/SIZE]

This + This

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual" arms.

= Contradiction.

-spence

The first quote by RR was a response to Jim in Ct re the Second Ammendment, and was meant to show that the ammendment was not really necessary because the right pre-existed the Constitution, and, since no power was granted in the Constitution which was written as a limitation on the central government to only those powers granted to it, the Federal Gvt. should have no interest in private ownership of arms. When RR repeated the statement in response to a post by me, he added the word "federal": "No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . ."

I believe that the second quote: "Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual arms" is referring mostly to state governments since the Federal Gvt is already presumed, via the Second Ammendment and the Constitution's silence, to have no interest in private ownership of arms. Note the plural use of government(s), not singular government. And note the use of "claim" to restrict, and the rest of the sentence left out of your quote: "But government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" beause it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e. the present idiotic 'assault weapons' hoopla)."

Considering the entire context of RR's quotes, and his assertion that SCOTUS has not had opportunity to examine the Second Ammendment in its entire relation to private arms ownership, I don't think there is a contradiction in what he says.

Not that I am confident that SCOTUS would rule as RR wishes, especially if rulings come from an Obama packed Court.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

This + This

= Contradiction.

Did you stop reading as soon as you found this supposed "contradiction"?

There was a "But . . . " in there.

Why don't you try again and let's see if this "contradiction" survives:

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

• A type in common use at the present time and/or
• A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

The type of arm commonly referred to as an "assault weapon" meets ALL the tests for protection so it can not be "dangerous and unusual".

Thus, any government claim of power to restrict / control / ban the possession and use of that type of arm is repelled and the citizens right to possess and use that type of arm will be preserved.