Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

I have a question about the 2nd amendment: Is the right to bear arms absolute, or is it subject to reasonable regulation?

Example: There are a lot of weapons I cannot legally acquire, for example: I can't buy an M249 machine gun, most automatic M-16s, a functioning fighter jet with all its armament, or a nuclear warhead.

In your view, is this acceptable, or is it a clear violation of the 2nd amendment?

Outright banning is only legally permissible when a) the state can prove that they are able to NARROWLY infringe your rights and b) that they can demonstrate significant gains and c) if the firearm to be banned is not "one in common use at the time".

For affirmations of this, you can reference the Supreme Court decisions in DC v Heller (and to a lesser degree, Chicago v McDonald). Both cases were notable for having overturned outright firearms bans in both DC and Chicago as they were Constitutional infringements.

It's also worth noting that they're both relatively recent cases.

The AR15 is the most common rifle sold in America today, and while a 1994 Assault Weapons ban was able to get passed, I genuinely don't believe it could happen today. There have been a plethora of recent Supreme Court cases affirming that citizens have the right to bear arms, even though the state might wish to prohibit it, and as these are SCOTUS decisions, they of course apply at a federal level. In the 94 ban, there hadn't been any challenges to gun control legislation since US v Miller, in 1939, and that was at the very least an odd case as Miller was tried in absentia, and actually died before the case concluded with an unfavorable verdict for him.

Regardless, the cases are piling up in support of the second amendment, with Illinois' firearms ban having been affirmed as unconstitutional just a few days ago (though the initial ruling happened sometime last year).

I realize this is a large rant in response to a fairly small statement, but I think that precedent pretty much eliminates either a regressive licensing system or blanket banning (on firearms in common use), though of course there may be other strategies (which I'm sure we'll find out as many states are passing clearly Unconstitutional legislation).

"For 2011/2012 there were 549 homicides in England[1], for the same period there was ~14,000 in the US[2]. The population of the UK is 62 million, the population of the US is 313 million. There are 6x more people in the US but 28x more homicides"

313 million / 62 million = 5 (not 6).

14,000 / 549 = 25.5 (not 28).

You can't just "round" numbers up or down to suit the bias of your argument.

So, regarding the fighter jet and nuclear warhead, it is not considered a man-portable arm, which the supreme court has narrowed the definition of firearm down to.

There are arguments for and against whether or not it ought to be absolute, but clearly it is not, at least as presently governed. Thus far, the only known challenge on the National Firearms Act (which is what prohibits us from buying fully automatic machine guns) was US v Miller, in 1939. That was, as I mentioned in another thread, a very curious peace of legislation because Miller, a known gangster caught in possession of a sawed off shotgun, was being tried for possession of something he shouldn't have. He argued that per the second amendment, he should have the right to carry it, as it would be useful in the aid of a militia.

There were some challenges in transportation, and portions of the trial were run with Miller in absentia, during which time the US Government testified that sawed off shotguns had never been useful to the army, and should not be considered useful to a militia -- despite the fact they had been in use somewhat regularly only 20 years prior, by the US military. Further, Miller was killed before the decision was rendered, but the trial went on.

So, that said, if one believes that what the Supreme Court deems is Constitutional is, in fact what is Constitutional, then we are subject to 'reasonable regulation'.

Looking more recently however, at DC v. Heller. At the time, DC's laws had an outright ban on handguns, and as such, prevented him from doing so. Heller was a security guard at a Federal building during the day (where he was armed), but went home at night to a very bad neighborhood with no means to defend himself. He petitioned for the right to bear arms, and ultimately, the decision was found that DC's outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, and was struck down. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that weapons "in common use at the time" were exempt from outright bans.

More recent cases since Heller have pretty much affirmed this, with bans in Chicago (Chicago v McDonald), Illinois (Moore v Madigan) and others being outright struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe that attempts to ban the AR15 (and similar popular weapons) will, if successful, be ultimately struck down as unconstitutional per the precedent in Heller. The AR15 is the most popular rifle sold in America today, and has been for a number of years, and is clearly "in common use at the time".

Regarding fully automatic machine guns, the NFA provisions have not been challenged since Miller, which wasn't even a full challenge in and of itself, and certainly went far above 'unusual'. I suspect that within the next 10 years we'll see someone challenge the National Firearms Act restrictions, and quite possibly win.

The reason I believe this is because the second amendment is provided "for militia" purposes and for "defense against tyranny, foreign or domestic." As it stands, we are far outgunned by our own military. Historically, the arms used in the Revolutionary War were almost entirely provided by the citizenry and militia men. Militia members were expected to show up ready to fight and armed with weapons "in common use at the time." That's where we got our rifles, but it's also where we got our cannons, mortars, ships and navy from -- all were provided by the citizenry at large.

That said, since I think you were asking my personal view, I can't say whether or not it is or is not unconstitutional, because it has not yet been challenged on Constitutionality. I know that might seem like a copout, and I suppose it is, but as there isn't particularly clear evidence either way, I would say that I dunno. The biggest argument for it, right now, is that there are legally ownable fully automatic machine guns (interestingly enough, the densest ownership of them per capita exists in New Hampshire, which consistently ranks between the 1st and 3rd safest states to live in) by paying a $200 tax stamp. I don't honestly feel that automatic weaponry has advanced in technology all that much, so if it makes sense that people can own old ones, why shouldn't those same people be allowed to own new ones?

I don't disagree in the slightest, if you consider the AR as it is traditionally packaged and sold. The AR though, like the Linux nerd-reference I made earlier, is more of a platform than a gun itself. I have seen ARs in 50 cal beowulf configurations, .300 whisper, etc. So, they can be used very effectively for hunting. A friend of mine has one that he uses for 'plinking' cans and targets, and by swapping the upper to .300, is able to effectively deer hunt with it.

As for home defense, that's very subjective. To me, the best weapon for home defense is the one that I can shoot the most easily. The AR is so loved because it IS easy to use. The first time I actually fired one was when I was volunteering at a disabled veterans charity range event. There were many veterans who had sustained injuries that prevented them from being able to handle regular rifles. Many of their guns were configured with forward grips in a variety of angles (depending on their ability to handle it), and found it to be an all around useful for utility.

Another aspect is that standard capacity magazines (20-30, depending on manufacturer) make them great for self defense in untrained hands. That they are "scary looking" doesn't hurt their ability to deter would-be attackers, but compared to the AR10, the .223 round does have substantially less 'stopping' power (I'll be happy to dispute the meaning of that in another venue, because while I agree that physics make it such that no bullet has stopping power, the ability to impair the target is a different issue altogether), and anecdotally, people I know that have used the AR in self defense or military situations generally attest that you double tap targets before they're considered neutralized. No such generality exists for .308 or 7.62NATO rounds.

Lastly, if my wife were the subject of a home invasion, the last thing in the world that I would want to happen to her is to run out of bullets and for the bad guys to know that. Joe Biden recently advised that in the event of a home invasion, you should own a shotgun and fire two warning blasts -- my contention in response to that is that 2 shots effectively empties most shotguns, and disarming yourself before an attacker has even moved seems silly. Add to that that in many areas discharging a firearm as such is a crime, and that will likely damage somebody else's property in urban environments.

As for the utility of it for home defense, that depends on many factors. I live out in the woods. It's a suburb, but I'm in a hilly area geographically, so I could fire a gun level in three directions and not have to worry about hitting anything other than ground. If I were in a denser city, I would almost certainly prefer a shotgun -- ideally something like a 12-round, magazine fed Saiga.

But as for the argument of ARs not having utility, I'd say that's only true if you never take it apart. Once you swap uppers, it becomes, effectively, a set of lincoln logs for you to do with whatever you like (and are allowed to do).