So the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to semi-automatic weapons either?
Um: “…but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia…”
Semi-automatic weapons are used by the militia, and are not uncommon.
Of course, automatic weapons are also common and used by ‘militia’ (by which I assume they mean the National Guard), but I guess they could be considered ‘dangerous’ (though, again, seemingly not much more dangerous than any other type of gun).
Does this mean that my dreams of owning a fully functional tank, complete with main gun are never going to be fulfilled?? 
They are not “arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” See the US supreme court case of US vs Miller ( UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute ) which did not overturn a restriction on sawed-off shotguns on the basis that: “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.”
On the other hand, by the logic of this ruling the more appropriate a weapon is for use by a modern infantry unit, the stronger the 2nd amendment protection for its possession should be.
“Militia” is defined by the US Code in 10 U.S. Code § 311 a :
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. "
(Title 32 concerns the national guard; certain veterans up to age 64 are also considered part of the militia.)
Thanks Tim…but keep that rabbit at bay, would you? That think looks like it’s got a vicious streak a mile wide, and foul tempered to boot! And are those bones…?
You left out a bit:
That time being the time of the adoption of the amendment - when semi-automatic weapons were not used by the militia. The militia of today also uses attack helicopters, tanks, APCs, fixed-wing fighter and attack aircraft, artillery…
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
That time being the time of the adoption of the amendment - when semi-automatic weapons were not used by the militia. The militia of today also uses attack helicopters, tanks, APCs, fixed-wing fighter and attack aircraft, artillery…
[/QUOTE]
The only weapons available to ANY military unit, regular or militia at the time were black powder muzzle loaders (smooth bore or rifled). Is it your serious contention that people have to be limited to that? 
In brief - arms in the context of the 2nd amendment would be those in common use for lawful purposes and not ‘dangerous and unusual’.
Semi-automatic weapons are common, not dangerous (inherently), and commonly used for lawful purposes. Heller went further to say that the quintessential self defense choice for the home were handguns. There is an argument to be made whether machine guns would fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment, but there has been no court case that opined on this. Under this logic, things like ASPs and/or knives should be covered, but again, no court case has tested this. There was a case of nun-chucks which I’m not sure how it was decided. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to say that nun-chucks are in common use. Bruce Lee notwithstanding.
Arguments that try to connect the 2nd amendment to aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, artillery, landmines, etc. are unsupported based on the current jurisprudence.
I remain confused as to why there’s virtually no place in America I can walk around with a functional sword sheathed at my side.
Your backyard, or within your curtilage or your owned place of business may be legal.
“right to bear arms…” You can’t own an M1 tank unless you can carry it, then? Portable weapons yes, wheeled weapons no?
The founding fathers must have contemplated the option of citizens owning smaller canon, since that was not beyond the imagination - it was a part of their military arsenal. However, I assume quite a few private commerical sailing ships did have small canon on board.
IIRC the whole later middle ages was about the crown trying to limit the existence of private armies by the dukes and barons. Did nobody mention this during the debate, or was the logic that “privately armed crowds stopped the redcoats, they can stop any robber baron?”
It is my serious contention that Miller and Heller make no legally supportable distinction between black powder guns, modern semi-auto weapons, and modern military-only weapons.
I agree that those are distinctions that are not in the holding in Heller or Miller. What they did was carve out was general guidance, like ‘common use’, etc. The AR-15 platform semi-auto rifles is one of the most commonly owned civilian rifle in the US. It would certainly qualify as one in common use. I don’t think I could say the same for the AA-12 full auto shotgun (though I would totally get one if I could - seriously watch some videos, it’s awesome).
The context of that particular discussion wan’t about the impact of Heller on present law, it was about the Constitution itself. The interpretation given in Heller was a divisive and partisan 5-4 ruling by the conservative faction of the court, strongly dissented by the other justices. History will tell whether it was the true and wise interpretation that you claim, or whether it was yet another asinine USSC decision that will cause great harm before finally being overturned.
The question of what constitutes “arms” is not just an academic one, but a real one that is actually and presently being interpreted to the great detriment of societal safety, permitting a flood of dangerous weaponry that the Framers of the Constitution could never have foreseen, deployed in the kind of world – and with the kinds of consequences – that they could never have imagined.
Because a sword doesn’t have the quasi-religious and even vaguely erotic status that the gun has as an object of power-worship, so it can be regulated objectively.
I couldn’t care less about that definition.
And I couldn’t care less about the Second Amendment. Are we saying the colonist during our War of Independence did not have a right to bear arms because the Second Amendment had not yet existed?
I have a right to bear arms because I believe I have a right to bear arms. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Living, breathing humans had a right to bear arms before the Second Amendment existed. And living, breathing humans will continue to have a right to bear arms after the Federal Constitution is sent through the paper shredder.
It’s my belief – and the belief of many – that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.
Historically, it’s been alienated over and over. So your belief is irrational.
I wouldn’t say that. The right and duty to keep and bear arms and a citizen’s militia is part of English tradition. It’s pretty well established in the Common Law, and the colonial militias weren’t seen as strange or innovative to the English, even if, with a smaller military presence in the colonies, the militias were stronger and had a bigger role than they did in England itself.
I don’t think your beliefs define reality. You have a right if there’s a general consensus that you do. All rights are, by their nature, contractual and communal. When you say, “I have a right to do x”, what that means is that the society as a whole agrees that you can’t be restricted from doing X." A right is a voluntary limitation of state or community power over an individual or group.
Except in every civilized country in the world, where it isn’t.
These countries subscribe to the peculiar belief that the right of citizens to personal security such as the right to not be shot is a lot more damn fundamental and inalienable than, say, the right to shoot beer cans off fence posts.
SCOTUS has agreed with this for many years, and not just since Heller. The pre-existing right to arms exists, however it does not have force of law. That is what the 2nd amendment does - it codifies that right.
Just because a right is violated does not mean that it is eliminated.