Where do you get the idea that the legislature possesses any power to dictate to the citizen what types of arms may be possessed and used?

The SCOTUS has spoken and has established the protection criteria for the 2nd Amendment and that criteria expressly limits the powers of the legislature.

Is it that you don't know that, or are you trying to misrepresent the facts?

__________________

Your definition and use of "dangerous" here has no relationship to the longstanding standard that speaks to the types of arms that can be regulated nor the actual criteria that SCOTUS uses to determine if a type of arm is beyond government's reach or able to be restricted.

Is it that you don't know that or are you trying to misrepresent the facts?

__________________

LOL. Magazines are protected arms under the 2nd Amendment, even in the federal case law that upheld a law banning mags over 10 rounds, it is stipulated that a magazine is an arm under the 2nd Amendment. Ellipsis denote internal citations that have been removed:

"We therefore must first determine whether the regulated item is an arm under the Second Amendment. The law challenged here regulates magazines, and so the question is whether a magazine is an arm under the Second Amendment. The answer is yes. A magazine is a device that holds cartridges or ammunition. . . . Regulations that eliminate “a person’s ability to obtain or use ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms for their core purpose.” . . . Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. . . . "

New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc et al v Attorney General of New Jersey et al, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3170 (pg 19) PDF

So, now it's time to make lemonade! The legal justification for upholding the law (otherwise known as, banning an arm under the 2ndA LOL) is found in the low level of scrutiny applied to the challenged law by the court:

"Having determined that magazines are arms, we next apply a two-step framework to resolve the Second Amendment challenge to a law regulating them. . . . "

At this point I don't think you possess either the legal knowledge or intellectual integrity to discuss this any deeper. You are baldly wrong on the most basic facts and rather than accept and learn from your errors, you seem happy to invent a complete alternate reality. I refrain from debating a person's fantasies although they are fun to prove wrong.

__________________

Americans think living in a socialist police state is normal, but freedom is not some textbook theory.

There are still some Americans alive today who will tell you that freedom is better.

Hi there!

__________________

Hi there, again!

__________________

Not according to the conservative interpretations of the US Supreme Court where even Justice Scalia stated that the right to own firearms never implied the right to own any type of firearm. Fully automatic firearms that are already owned are highly restricted and the Congress has prohibited the production of new automatic firearms for civilian use. No Second Amendment violation there and I don't even believe the NRA has challenged those restrictions/prohibitions on firearms.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have been based upon the right of self-defense against acts of aggression because of the firearm's ability to instantly stop an assault. That argument is going to evaporate at some point in the future when a non-lethal means of instantly stopping an assault is invented. The right of self-defense does not include a right to kill and all deaths from firearms used in self-defense are incidental to the use of the firearm to instantly stop an assault.

When the non-lethal means of stopping an assault instantly is invented then firearms can be banned because of the death of the person can no longer be justified by self-defense.

Congress has this authority under the Constitution to regulate which "arms" are protected and which arms are not protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not specifically protect a person's right to possess firearms.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Not all Appeals Court rulings are upheld by the Supreme Court and even some Supreme Court rulings are eventually overturned based upon the Constitution.

We also know that cases are determined by the arguments presented and an incompetent argument by one side can result in an incorrect decision.

The purpose of a firearm is to use an chemical explosive charge to propel a projectile. All semiautomatic firearms that I'm aware of can have a single cartridge inserted into the chamber and fired meeting the criteria for a firearm. The magazine is not necessary to fire the weapon.

Please note that I didn't propose banning removable magazines and all semiautomatic firearms meet the designed purpose regardless of how many rounds fit into the magazine. The issue is why would anyone need more than five rounds for a semiautomatic firearm? Are they that incompetent as a marksman that it requires more than five rounds to hit a target? If so they should spend more time practicing at the shooting range.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

[QUOTE=ShivaTD;960872]Not according to the conservative interpretations of the US Supreme Court where even Justice Scalia stated that the right to own firearms never implied the right to own any type of firearm. Fully automatic firearms that are already owned are highly restricted and the Congress has prohibited the production of new automatic firearms for civilian use. No Second Amendment violation there and I don't even believe the NRA has challenged those restrictions/prohibitions on firearms.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have been based upon the right of self-defense against acts of aggression because of the firearm's ability to instantly stop an assault. That argument is going to evaporate at some point in the future when a non-lethal means of instantly stopping an assault is invented. The right of self-defense does not include a right to kill and all deaths from firearms used in self-defense are incidental to the use of the firearm to instantly stop an assault.

When the non-lethal means of stopping an assault instantly is invented then firearms can be banned because of the death of the person can no longer be justified by self-defense.

Congress has this authority under the Constitution to regulate which "arms" are protected and which arms are not protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not specifically protect a person's right to possess firearms.[/QUOTE]

More babble. Do you even try to be accurate?

Case in point:

"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."

Seems pretty specific.

It's majestic, I'll give you that . . .

__________________