A different take on the debate?
This discussion I gather is about 922(o).
My personal objective: having 922(o) over-turned as unconstitutional! My desire is to also overturn the Washington State ban on machine guns. Given the above objectives, let me state at the outset that I have no concerns about private ownership of machine-guns (actually, automatic weapons) by law-abiding Americans and I long for the the pre-1934 era America.
The heart of the issue is the SA. And in the the SA the relevant clauses in my opinion are "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed." I believe that these clauses forecloses any rational debate against my position, which I will now try to explain.
According to the Oxford dictionary of the two words I believe are often misunderstood are "bear" and "arms", according to the Oxford Dictionary of English from that era of the crafting and enacting of the BOR, "bear" simply meant to carry, and "arms" meant any weapon carried.
Thus by definition, "arms" means any weapon carried, thus edge weapons, knives, swords, axes, bow and arrow, spear, shield are all weapons. This also means M16s, G3s, M4s, BARs, M14s, M249s, MP5s, MP7s, UZIs, Thompsons, sub-machine guns, etc. Because based upon the fact that these are all shoulder fired, they "shall not be infringed."
So, what is not arms? Any munition (explosive, or explosive device) that is not deployed by being carried, for example missiles, nuclear weapons, artillery, aircraft, ships, etc. Since missiles are not generally shoulder fired, I would include LARS, and stinger missiles as not being arms, but given the meaning arms, they might be included. Machine guns BTW are crewed manned weapons that are generally mounted to be operated, and are intended for sustained automatic fire, unlike service rifles and sub-machines.
The problem for those that do *not* trust lawful private ownership of automatic weapons, is that they need to *invent* meanings or subscribed limitations to get around the very clear and simple meaning of the SA.
This situation IMHO, is no different that what the US Supreme Court has done to the 4A. We are experiencing death by a thousand cuts, as politics *invents* meanings that do not exist in the plain and simple language of the constitution in order to infringe on *our* rights* as guaranteed by the Constitution, after all it is only a piece a paper!
A movie that I believe is relevant to this discussion is Patriot. "Aim small, miss small." and "Who taught you all of those things? To ride, shoot and fight."
Speaking for myself for moment, growing up I was a military brat, my family tree is full of men and women who have served! Thus I've never had any apprehension about lawful civilian ownership of automatic weapons.
Criminals on the other hand, is exactly why this right is so dear to me and my family.
I've spoke my piece.