Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

OK
But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied?
What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not?Please try to look at this from my point of view - Fire-arms to me are not an everyday object. In fact I have never held a gun or even seen one close up. The idea that they are obviously permitted to be carried is almost as bizzarre to me as someone walking around with a bazooka cannon might be to you!!!I am trying to work out what the limits of acceptability are with regard to weaponry in the US.
Forget legality for one moment(as this is obviously a complex subject, with numerous nuances and multiple interpretations)In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement?Is an armoured tank acceptable?
Is a bazooka gun?
Is a thermonuclear device?
Is a napalm bomb?
Is a machine gun?What is the limit and what is the reason/rationale for that limit?

Whilst I remain wholly unconvinced of the need for guns in society and disagree with a lot of what you say your post is at least a genuine answer to my questions and does display a rational criteria for limitation.However the video regarding hunting in Britain is woefully out of cultural context. The hunting this video refers to is the very British traditional form of hunting whereby people in full costume ride on horse back with packs of dogs with the end result of capturing and killing a fox.
A gun of any sort is unlikely to be used at all and if it is it will only be used to put the ravaged fox out of it's final misery. The vast majority of people in this video would no more promote the use of personal handguns for protection and use against other humans than would I. The fact that the American accented voice over fails to appreciate this fact is further evidence of the cultural misunderstanding.The term "hunt" in the US means something very different to the term "hunt" in the specific cultural context of British upper class "sport".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I lived in Guyana for a number of years and the one thing I learnt about guns is that poverty is rarely a barrier to owning firearms. So banning both guns and "other weapons" might be a valid form of ensuring less needless loss of life. No? In London there is a massive crackdown on the carrying of knives with a zero tolerance approach and stiffer sentances just for carrying (regardless of use) knives likely to be implemented. Ban knives as well seems to be the very obvious answer.Inner-cities saw 55% of knife and gun crime | Knife crime | The Guardian 52 people died as a result of being shot in the UK last year.
How does that compare to the US as a whole?
How does that compare to a single state in the US?
How does that compare to a single city in the US?
Does the right to guns really not result in more death by guns?
We have a population of about 60 million in the UK. How does 52 people compare as a percentage of the population with the number of gun deaths per head in the US? More homicides?
More homicides as a percentage of population? What is the violent crime rate of the UK? What is the violent crime rate of the US? Are the two measures using the same criteria for "violent crime"? If not what comparison, if any, can be drawn? I don't think it is me who needs blessing.
Bottom line: In a country of 60 million people there were 52 deaths due to guns in 2007 and 784 murders in total.
In the US: "In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, an average of about 81 people died every day from gunfire in the united states. All told 29,569 people were killed that year by firearms"Go figure...........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Together with poverty, gross social inequality and a fair amount of the population living in near third world conditions. As is inevitable in such circumstane there is a high degree of police corruption. If law enforcement and organised crime are all but indistinguishable no amount of stringent lawmaking and political posturing will have any effect on anything.
Do you have any examples other than Jamiaca? Other countries that have tight gun controls and high murder rates? Perhaps ones where poverty and corruption are not such a huge factor? A western 1st world democracy would surely be a better example with which to compare America? I do not know what ARU was so I typed "London ARU" into google and got a load of links to architecture and art websites. Obviously not a common term here. That in itelf probably says somethingThe police in Britain are apparently more armed than ever before. This is true. I have yet to see a gun carrying police officer on the streets of Britain but they do apparently exist. Like I said earlier I live in one of the most ethnically diverse and socially disadvantaged parts of London. So if I am not seeing police with guns they really cannot be that prevalent. I, and apparently the majority of my fellow countrymen, (about 60% according to the BBC website) wholly object to this recent development anyway.In my view this leads to an ever escalting arms race between the police and the criminals. If nobody has guns (even the police) then anyone caught with a weapon is a criminal. There is no ambiguity. If this is enforced such that any dealings with guns whatsoever is a criminal offence then the chasing of guns detracts from the main focus of the vast majority of criminals. Namely making money. It becomes more of a burden and liability than a benefit to be constantly having to evade being arrested for gun chasing rather than money making crime. Constantly being harrassed by law enforcement for what is a means to a end rather than an end in itself becomes an unnecessary hindrance to the criminals main activity.
By arming the police we A) send out the signal that guns are necessary in order to impose will B) setup a never ending arms race with the criminals who will see guns as an essential necessity, no matter how difficult or expensive to obtain, with which to take on armed police.It is sad to see that in the name of "fighting terrorism" and security in general the state is intruding ever further on long held principles of peace and freedom (constant surveillance, detention without trial, armed police etc. etc. etc.)

And your life and the lives of your loved ones is statistically and obviously much more likely to be in such danger in the gun wielding US than the non-gun friendly UK. The very obvious link to danger here is the prevalence of, and attitude to, guns.......

Ah I see. Armoured response Unit. In other words a set of highly trained police officers that do have fire-arms but which are only called upon to respond when there is the fairly rare threat of a criminal actually using a fire-arm.Eminently sensible and pragmatic without compromising the basic principle of not arming the general police in my view.Hardly the same as an armed police force is it......? Such as? Are any of them 1st world democracies? That would seem to be the most relevant comparison to make given that the US is the richest, and supposedly one of the freest, countries in the world. Especially given that poverty and crime are almost invariably linked. I am far from convinced that the crooks are "getting more plentiful". But anyway......
The best answer to this is to invest in the the police force properly.
Street level corruption invariably occurs where the level of public financing is such that the police are woefully under invested in (as I would imagine is the case in Jamaica).
I have met many good British police officers. I have also met some bigoted power tripping wankers who are part of the British police force. However I have yet to hear of any police officer 'on the take' and I do know many of my local community who, shall we say, are 'on the fringe of the law'.Also the idea that we are all going to triumph over the the state run militia and law enforcement in the event of a military coup or some such thing if we all own a pistol is a fantasy from the world of John Wayne (or wherever)The best way to make such a scenario impossible is through the systems of freedom and democracy. Via both the national and international bodies.Do you really believe that the US government is going to start laying siege to your town anytime soon? And what.....?
Do deranged psychos with guns never go on murderous rampages in the US because you all own guns? Quite the opposite seems to be the case........ You guys have had plenty of such incidents. If anything because of the easy access to guns. Whether we actually believe in heaven or not wouldn't it be better to aim for a system that is closest to heaven rather than a system designed to not let hell get any worse? Does everyone in heaven own a gun..........?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Feel free. Personally I would do away with the monarchy on philosophical grounds but to all practical intents and purposes their existence makes no difference to anything much at all.I'll happily criticise Britsh law where I think it is stupid.
To get back to the subject at hand - I think the right for everyone to arm themselves is frankly mad.