Bump stocks” aren’t constitutionally protected any more than heroin is, dumb shit.

I bet you have one though,don't you?

I bet you have one though

Actually, I don’t. I personally feel banning them is as fruitless as installing a screen door on a submarine. But my point was valid... the problem isn’t that bump stocks are banned because they aren’t a fucking right to possess. The problem is the assholes that get indoctrinated to allow this to happen OR HAVE TO HAPPEN. Those sheep are your American PEERS.

“Bump stocks” aren’t constitutionally protected

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

Anyways, it's always hilarious watching the rampant hypocrisy of Trump cultists on full display.

This Republican president’s promise to “write out” bump fire stocks sounds suspiciously like his Democratic predecessor’s claim to possess the power to use his phone and pen to make law.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Barack Obama proclaimed in 2014. “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions,” he added.

If Obama had taken steps to ban bump-stocks, you would have screamed bloody murder.

Trump does it and he's "Making America Great Again".

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

A bump stock is not a firearm. Dumb shit.

lol

Actually, I don’t. I personally feel banning them is as fruitless as installing a screen door on a submarine.

I actually agree with you on that. In fact,if someone is shooting at me with an AR,I hope they are using a bump stock because the chances are much higher that I won't get hit.

I am sure there is something I hate more than an inaccurate weapon,but I am having trouble thinking of it right at this moment.

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

It's not a firearm. It's a freaking butt stock.

Our Founding Fathers were not concerned about protecting a man’s right to keep his home and family safe from “danger.” Our Founding Fathers protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms because they knew that such was the only way to avoid being enslaved by tyrants.

They knew from their study of history that a tyrant’s first move was always to disarm the people, and generally to claim it was for their safety, and to establish a standing army so as to convince the people that they didn’t need arms to protect themselves, for the tyrant and his professional soldiers would do it for them. Sound familiar?

Consider this gem from William Blackstone, a man of immense and undeniable influence on the Founders and their understanding of rights, civil and natural.

In Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone declares “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

The English common law right of self-defense was not a right of communal defense against the dark overlords. The right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution carried forth the English common law right to keep and bear arms which was applicable to the colonists as subjects of the King of England.

The author could have quoted Blackstone directly on point, but he does not like what it says:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

The common law right to keep and bear arms applied to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions." This RKBA was carried forth by the colonies into the Constitution.

"Due restrictions" may include bump stocks.

[Deckard #10] Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

What part of the defined "right" in "the right to keep and bear arms" do you not understand. The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions." Your misunderstanding is not of "shall not be infringed" but your willful misunderstanding of the right itself, and its inherent limitations.

The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions."

You Hogg bro canaries are clueless.

lol

The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions."

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

Wanna bet Trump the gun-grabber goes after them before his term is up?

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

This is why LITTLE PEOPLE, like you, have no importance. You’re an idiot... and have no business deciding what’s constitutional and what’s not.

Your post is the dumbest shit I think I’ve ever read on ANY political forum.

Your post is the dumbest shit

How ironic coming from a former cop with a room-temperature IQ.

Eat a buffet of dicks princess.

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

Most people think that a stock is an essential part of a rifle. It's like saying that you can only have a trigger that fires once every minute.

Nanny state Infringements!

Nanny state Infringements!

Trump cultists don't care as long as it's "their boy" doing the infringing.

Commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, eminent Founding Era jurist and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker put a finer point on the purpose of protecting the natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. He wrote:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Enough said.

Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; And of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by St. George Tucker (Philadelphia: Published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small, Robert Carr, Printer, 1803) is a five (5) volume work. All praise to the author for avoiding any citation to the title or a volume, must less a section or page, or a link to an online copy.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1, Appendix, NOTE D, Section 12, Restraints on Powers of Congress

8. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1, Appendix, NOTE C, Of the Constitution of Virginia

The imbecility of an executive, possessing no independent authority with respect to the public force, must in time of war, or danger, place it under the immediate direction of the legislature, which is thus transformed into a numerous executive council, annually elected. The incapacity of such a body to concert and conduct uniform measures, for such active operations as may be required for the defence of the state, is self-evident to every man of the least discernment. Nothing short of omniscience could prepare the members, before the time of assembling, to act according to the existing state of things; either the time must be lost in acquiring the necessary knowledge of these things, or ignorance, faction, and intrigue, will disconcert every measure that maybe proposed. A state thus governed would equally be exposed to internal convulsions, and to foreign insult or dominion. The expectation of forming an immediate and effectual federal government of the states, probably occasioned much of this inattention to the structure of the government so far as relates to its foreign concerns. The danger arising from this circumstance is strongly depicted by Mr. Jefferson. Every man must shudder with horror at the proposal which he mentions of making a dictator: had the legislature done so, the executive in all probability must have submitted without a struggle; and the opposition of the judiciary to such an authority must have been equally ineffectual. Inter arma silent leges, is a maxim which will ever be peculiarly applicable to that department, though in time of peace it may be regarded as the palladium of genuine liberty. Happily for us, many of the inconveniences which might have been apprehended in Virginia as a sovereign state, unconnected with any other, are now in a great measure remedied by the adoption of the federal constitution, by which all those objects which respect other nations or states, are consigned to the care, attention, and regulation of the federal government; whilst those which respect the domestic happiness, interest, and advancement of the state, its internal economy, peace, and good order, form an ample field for the wisdom and patriotism of the state-legislature to exert themselves, without hazarding, as we may reasonably hope, a repetition of those dangers to which a constitution formed without a precedent, and without experience to guide its framers, at first exposed us.

In the draught for a constitution of this state, prepared by Mr. Jefferson, there is an excellent delineation of the powers and duties which should be assigned to the governor, and council respectively; and with recommending it to the very attentive perusal of the student, I shall conclude my remarks on this part of the constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d16000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 — Appendix, Note D, Section 16 - Judicial Powers.

If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend it's aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from it's decisions: whilst on the contrary, it's decisions in favour of the citizen are carried into instantaneous effect, by delivering him from the custody and restraint of the executive officer, the moment that an acquittal is pronounced. And herein consists one of the great excellencies of our constitution: that no individual can be oppressed whilst this branch of the government remains independent, and uncorrupted; it being a necessary check upon the encroachments, or usurpations of power, by either of the other. Thus, if the legislature should pass a law dangerous to the liberties of the people, the judiciary are bound to pronounce, not only whether the party accused hath been guilty of any violation of it, but whether such a law be permitted by the constitution. If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act. If an individual be persecuted by the executive authority, (as if any alien, the subject of a nation with whom the United States were at that time at peace, had been imprisoned by order of the president under the authority of the alien act, 5 Cong. c. 75) it is then the province of the judiciary to decide whether there be any law that authorises the proceedings against him, and if there be none, to acquit him, not only of the present, but of all future prosecutions for the same cause: or if there be, then to examine it's validity under the constitution, as before-mentioned. The power of pardon, which is vested in the executive, in it's turn, constitutes a proper check upon the too great rigor, or abuse of power in the judiciary department. On this circumstance, however, no great stress ought to be laid; since in criminal prosecutions, the executive is in the eye of the law, always plaintiff; and where the prosecution is carried on by it's direction, the purity of the judiciary is the only security for the rights of the citizen. The judiciary, therefore, is that department of the government to whom the protection of the rights of the individual is by the constitution especially confided, interposing it's shield between him and the sword of usurped authority, the darts of oppression, and the shafts of faction and violence.

In interpreting the U.S. Constitution, one may not ignore the English common law that was brought over to the colonies and "remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states."

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 — Appendix, Note E, Of The Unwritten, or Common Law of England and Its Introduction Into, and Authority Within the United American States

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.

Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act.

This is where they summon from the ether that the Court only issues opinions that are not binding and may be ignored.

open carry on the Kent State campus

Not on her watch, Donnell and David Hogg's goons don't stand a chance at the new and improved Kent State.

Gun girl has put the fear of God into the Trump/Hogg gun grabbers

Hondope and partner prom pic on twitter. How sweet.

https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky/status/988454056615202817

Cameron Kasky
@cameron_kasky

Prom 2018
9:26 AM - 23 Apr 2018

It looks like your inner yukon snuck out of the closet again.

Not on her watch, Donnell and David Hogg's goons don't stand a chance at the new and improved Kent State.

She is not a student or faculty at Kent State. She can lawfully open carry on campus per Ohio law. She is a visitor and does not fall under the Board of Trustees' policy statement: "The policy provides a declaration by the Board that deadly weapons are prohibited on all university grounds, unless otherwise permitted by Ohio law."

Trump cultists don't care as long as it's "their boy" doing the infringing.

Beautiful plumage the poodle's tailors wove him ehh?

" it's several decades too late to save my hearing. "

I am with you on that. I use to laugh at people that used ear plugs shooting 22's. No more. I do the same now. Abused myself too much when I was younger !!

Now I wear them even when using 22's. Hearing is bad now, just do not want it to deteriorate further.

Wife says if I get any worse, she will have to get one of those battery bull horns. I said " Huh " LOL !!!

- - - - - - - - - -

The Great, the Magnificient President Donald J. Trump

Dan Rather (3rd from left) hosts a SiriusXM Roundtable Special Event with Parkland, Florida, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Students and activists (L-R) Alex Wind, Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Jaclyn Corin at SiriusXM Studio on March 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s

That's incorrect, there are many firing full auto at Knob Creek and elsewhere.

NFA '34 levied a $200 tax stamp on them. There are many machine guns in private hands, "legally".

Canadian Senator goes full auto, legally....

As a society, we have drawn the line at automatic weapons. You can have semi-automatic weapons, but full automatics are difficult to come by legally, and buying one requires a lot of extra steps.

This seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. In a similar vein, I don't mind if airplane aficionados buy and fly World War II bombers. I do mind if they are able to arm them with bombs.

I do mind if they are able to arm them with bombs.

You hate us because we're free. Trump will sell anything to the Saudi's, but US citizens have infringements.

Well ya, Joe Sixpack doesn't have $110 Billion to spend on arms. Not Saudi Prince's, so we're screwed.

I think that the gun laws should be set to keep machine guns out of private hands. Machine guns and missile launchers, bombs, nukes, anti-aircraft weapons, etc.

Private people having THOSE weapons in their hands doesn't make ANY of us free - it holds us all hostage to nutjobs who cook off all the time. We SEE nutjobs cook off right HERE on THIS small website all the time.

Drawing the line THERE, at machine guns, makes sense to me. I don't believe that it's a matter of cutting off your freedom to say you can't have machine guns, land mines, Hawk missile batteries, Stinger missiles, Claymore mines and a nuke in your basement. Jesus Christ, man, you people sound like lunatics when you suggest that ANY sort of rational restriction on gun ownership renders you unfree. It's nuts.

Semiautomatic weapons? Sure - I think we should be able to have those. Also handguns - I think we should be able to carry those in most places. I don't think we should have to register every gun or license everybody. Broad guns rights are great.

But unlimited open-ended possession of any sort of weapons? Nukes in your basement? No. Machine guns? No. No, our society will not be FREE, in any meaningful sense, when nutjobs can cook off and hose down 100, 200, 100,000 people at a shot before they can be stopped.

Common sense has got to prevail. You put yourself out of the pale of even getting to sit at the table when you bleed out the eyes at ANY sort of restriction on weapons. That hasn't ever really been our law. It's not our law now. It's not going to BE our law.

Now, if you and your ilk are rational and admit that, yeah, weapons of mass destruction are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, then people will accept you at the table. But if you take an absolutist hard line, then your guns rights ends up being lost because you're not even in the room, the only people left standing up for gun rights are people like me. And I understand why machine guns are where the line has to be drawn.

Engage rationally on the question, don't go crying that you're being enslaved because you aren't allowed to have your own person nuke. COME ON, man.

NFA '34 levied a $200 tax stamp on them. There are many machine guns in private hands, "legally".

There are 186,619 transferable machine guns in the USA. Only machine guns lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986 qualify.

And they’re all registered, so the BATF knows where they are, yes?

And if one man, say, who runs a mosque or has a compound out in Idaho, accumulates 15, 20, 30, 1000 of them, the government will know that, because those weapons are tracked, true?

If a mosque or a militia starts accumulating legal machine guns, there will be government spies sent to see what is going on, yes? We don’t pretend that the accumulation of machine guns is like collecting flowers, because we’re not obligated by the 2nd Amendment to be blind idiots. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Right?

There are 186,619 transferable machine guns in the USA. Only machine guns lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986 qualify.

Those machine guns are all full auto, I assume?

And they’re all registered, so the BATF knows where they are, yes?

All full auto machine guns. Only those machine guns lawfully in civilian possession before May 19, 1986 may be lawfully in civilian possession today. If a machine gun was not registered on a Form 4S prior to May 19, 1986, it may not be lawfully transferred to a civilian today.

No new machine guns may be manufactured for civilian possession. No weapon of new manufacture can be registered on Form 4S prior to May 19, 1986.

The restricting issue, and the cost inflating issue, is not the $200 tax stamp. All such weapons must have been owned and registered before May 19, 1986. Demand exceeds supply, and unless the law changes, supply will never exceed the 186,619 of such registered weapons that existed in 1986.

BATF may not know where they are all at, but they know who they are registered to and in whose custody they are supposed to be.

And if one man, say, who runs a mosque or has a compound out in Idaho, accumulates 15, 20, 30, 1000 of them, the government will know that, because those weapons are tracked, true?

Their lawful transfer generates a required paper trail. They must authorize the transfer, or the unauthorized transfer of the weapon results in unlawful possession and a weapon that may be seized as contraband.

If a mosque or a militia starts accumulating legal machine guns, there will be government spies sent to see what is going on, yes? We don’t pretend that the accumulation of machine guns is like collecting flowers, because we’re not obligated by the 2nd Amendment to be blind idiots. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Right?

I believe all you said is correct.

Of possible interest:

Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487 (2004).

Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol73/iss2/3

Saul Cornell, St. George Tucker and the Second Amendment: Original Understandings and Modern Misunderstandings, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1123 (2006).

Available at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol47/iss4/3

Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s.

No,they haven't. It would be un-Constitutional to ban them,so the goobermint came up with a permit system called a "Class 3 Licence" to buy,own,or possess full-auto weapons and "weapons of mass destruction".

You have to fill out feral papers and have them approved by your local Chief of Police or Sheriff,and he has to send them off to the feral government. I forget now how much the "tax stamp" costs for each weapon these days,but IIRC,it was 300 bucks back in the 30's when this un-Constitutional insanity started,and that was a massive amount of money at that time.

The fee remained at that level until Bubba and a DIM Congress managed to achieve a run-around the Constitution by the simple method of destroying every surplus Class 3 weapon in their inventory. This in effect is a ban because there are no longer any more surplus full-auto weapons to be released,and this means the price for something simple like a M3 Greasegun that used to be available for 400-500 bucks is now several thousand bucks,and getting more expensive every day.

Bubba even had surplus weapons we gave to other nations confiscated and destroyed or put out of reach by dumping them in the deep ocean. I personally knew people who told me that what looked like brand new BAR's,Thompsons,M-2 Carbines,M3s,and M-14's were taken out to sea and dumped with BATF agents supervising and writing down the serial numbers.

No problem for Bubba and his bodyguards because the government provides full auto weapons to guard him and his family,and no real problem for his golf partners,because it is chump change to them.

There is no longer any practical way for a blue-collar worker to legally own one because he just can't afford it.

As a society, we have drawn the line at automatic weapons. You can have semi-automatic weapons, but full automatics are difficult to come by legally, and buying one requires a lot of extra steps.

This seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. These are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

In a similar vein, I don't mind if airplane aficionados buy and fly World War II bombers. I do mind if they are able to arm them with bombs.

This proves you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Trump will sell anything to the Saudi's, but US citizens have infringements.

You really are turning into a fucking idiot.

Machine guns have been illegal for nearly a century.

Really? Damn shame you weren't around to hear my local sheriff tell his secretary to sign off on anything I wanted,including machine guns,without having to ask him when I applied for my CCW permit.

That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.

How about nukes? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee your right to have a personal nuke in your basement?

Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.

The founding fathers knew that wanabe tyrants will always exist, so arms parity with the military.

Come and take them, Piers13!

arms parity with the miltiary

So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?

So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?

I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record.

Texas Nuclear Weapons Facility Pantex Activates Emergency Response Team Because of 'Unexpected Event'

I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record.

That's swell. But do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

[Vicomte13 #36] Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s.

[sneakypete #45] No,they haven't. It would be un-Constitutional to ban them,so the goobermint came up with a permit system called a "Class 3 Licence" to buy,own,or possess full-auto weapons and "weapons of mass destruction".

[sneakypete #46] That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. These are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Your position that a ban of machineguns would be unconstitutional is explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008).

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

No, it's a God given natural right.

it's a God given natural right.

The U.S. Constitution does not protect those rights. Enjoy your bombs in the afterlife.