You did notice that these:
If air guns are not protected under 2A then their is no legal protection for the ownership of them. If they are, then they can be regulated along with PBs and the definition of the amendment itself comes into play. If a weapon is not a PB but can be regulated under 2A all sorts of "arms" suddenly come into play. Where in the amendment is the nature of "arms" defined?
were simple logical assertions followed by a question, did you not?
That sort of suggests your opinion was being requested, but if you're looking for a fight, stick around someone will likely seek to entertain you. Although if you have no opinion, you will probably be uninteresting to any potential troll.
I ask you a simple question and you have no clue. That's why you posted it in the first place. Guns have to get restricted first and then usually airguns will be next as in Europe.
Oh, I missed this reply. Probably good that I did. I'm feeling unusually charitable today..
If I understand the "simple question" (bolded and underlined) in the above quote, you are asking me who said this:
If air guns are not protected under 2A then their is no legal protection for the ownership of them. If they are, then they can be regulated along with PBs and the definition of the amendment itself comes into play. If a weapon is not a PB but can be regulated under 2A all sorts of "arms" suddenly come into play. Where in the amendment is the nature of "arms" defined?
I have enlarged, bolded and underlined the source of the comment for you so that
"Who says" is more obvious ... I am sorry for being so obtuse ... I thought
"who says" was obvious.
Maybe you meant to ask,
"Why do you say that?" I shall endeavor to answer the question you did NOT ask because clearly the first question was self-explanatory and I obviously should have intuited your real question ...
I say that because historically the 2A has been interpreted to protect only firearms. There
appears to be no 2A protection for slingshots for example. They are regulated and banned in many communities. For example in Virginia, last I checked, concealed carry of a slingshot was illegal PERIOD. There wasn't even any opportunity to license one and carry it, although maybe the state would consider it ok if you had a CCP for a firearm.
That was the crux of the matter. If there is no 2A legal protection for the ownership of air arms then there is no restriction on banning them, as (I believe) has actually been done in some jurisdictions. So that covers the first sentence of the assertion(s) I made in the opening post. It asserts that your airguns can be banned for public safety reasons alone and you have no 2A recourse if the gubmit does that. That's pretty important and I figured it might be worthy of discussion.
The second sentence in the post asserts that any court setting precedent that air arms are protected under 2A brings the definition of "arms" in the Amendment into question and broadens the scope of the 2A enormously. That's probably a good thing. Actually it is very important from a legal perspective, I think.
The third sentence in that post asserts that (by the foregoing logic) anything defined as a weapon could be covered including but not limited to knives, slings, cannons, pitchforks and sharp sticks ... Frankly the more subtle inference of the third sentence is that clearly the courts will never open that can of worms and so "arms" will remain tied to a much narrower definition by the courts than was ever intended by the founders. Clearly the wording implies that air arms SHOULD be covered under the 2A, as should many other weapons which are not, bows and arrows among them.
The question is summed up in the last sentence of the original post, "Where in the amendment is the nature of "arms" defined?" That question was intended to get people to think about what the 2A intends. You see I assert that the 2A DOES protect airguns, knives, swords, and pointy sticks.
Now lets get to this part of your post:
I ask you a simple question and you have no clue. That's why you posted it in the first place. Guns have to get restricted first and then usually airguns will be next as in Europe.
Your first assertion was that you asked me a simple question. Simple for whom? You asked me
"Says who?" about a post which was literally labeled with the name of the person who said it. Clearly it must be a trick question, right? Either the answer is, "Well I said it." or you aren't asking who said it and I am to intuit your real question.
Your second assertion is that I have no clue. I suppose there are tons of things I could say to you to prove I have "clue". I have a better idea, though. Consider the last QUESTION in the post I first made an INVITATION to YOU to EXPLAIN to me where the logic fails. Then after you explain where the logic fails I WILL HAVE CLUE. Cool how that works, eh?
I have trouble with the part of your post where you say,
"That's why you posted it in the first place." I assume you are saying something like,
"because you have no clue, you posted this in the first place." which assumption, if correct, is already answered in the paragraph immediately above. In other words, YOU can fix that by answering the question, right?
Now then you make a very dangerous and illogical assumption with your last sentence. You say,
"Guns have to get restricted first and then usually airguns will be next as in Europe." Now, that statement right there, that's more than simply naive. That assumption is dangerously simple minded. Airguns are ALREADY regulated and banned in places where firearms are still protected (or can at the least be licensed and owned)
CITATION You can not justify the assumption that airguns will not be banned in some places as part of the process of banning firearms. You can not justify the assumption that airguns will not be banned FIRST in some places or be restricted MORE than PBs in some places BECAUSE we make the foolish assumption they are not protected under the 2A. The truth is they are legally defined as firearms in some places already.
Being declared firearms IS a two edged sword for those places. For example (and I will leave this question to you) NJ and Rhode Island define airguns as firearms. That means a clever lawyer might make the argument in those states they should receive 2A protections. It could be a back door to more rights for PB owners and better protection for the rights of airgunners, right?
So, Mr. Lowe, I do hope this fully answers your question,
"Says who?" and your ASSertion
"You are clueless." 
