[Blood of Tyrants]

So we can't own certain types of guns because they aren't suitable for national defense and we can't own other types of weapons because they are?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Don't try to make much sense of Reinhardt's writings. The High Court will chop this up like so much cabbage.

[Pistolshot]

The Natioanl Firearms of 1934 addressed this issue. Items deemed 'not suitable' included all MG's, sawed-offs, AOW's and silencers. Of course this was the excuse to have these types of weapons brought under control.
Now, of course, every grunt is issued a select-fire weapon, sawed-offs, and silencer-equipped MG's are used by some special units.

So if they were not 'suitible' then because they were not issued weapons, but are ISSUED now, doesn't that change the position?
Hopefully the Supremes will take this one. At least on the differences in the Circuit courts would be eliminated.

The Ninth Circuit Court needs to become the Nixed Circuit Court.

[Dan Day]

So we can't own certain types of guns because they aren't suitable for national defense and we can't own other types of weapons because they are?

Some pro-gun folks like to call this "Goldilocks gun control". To the anti-gunners, some guns are too hot, some guns are too cold, and no gun is "just right".

For example, from Goldilocks Gun Control, by Edgar Suter, MD:

Some guns are ``too big'' (``assault weapons''); some guns are ``too small'' (handguns). Some ammunition penetrates ``too much'' (armor piercing ammo); some ammunition penetrates ``too little'' (``hyperdestructive'' hollow point ammo). Some guns are ``too inaccurate'' (``Saturday Night Specials''); some guns are ``too accurate'' (scoped hunting rifles or ``sniper rifles'' that don't give Bambi ``a chance'') -- or so the Goldilocks gun banners say.