That the question of what constitutes a "semiautomatic" firearm has to be taken seriously is based on the highly questionable assumption that the dissent is actually a reasoned and honest attempt to reach the best decision, rather than a poorly cobbled assembly of disjointed and often specious arguments collected simply to cast doubt on a decision that runs counter to their personal prejudices.

I agree that Americans can be categorized as those comfortable around guns and those uncomfortable around guns. (For instance, the latter tend to think guns can "just go off" while merely resting on a workbench.) But that's not to say you gotta be a gun-guy to be a fantastic RKBA advocate. Some of the best attorneys in this movement rarely pick up and fire a gun themselves.

I am reminded of this line: "There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who do not."

While it might be dangerous to categorize the chattering classes using binary choices in the RKBA debate (or all the rest for that matter), it is how political science is applied. "If you're not for it, you're agin' it."

Nixon seized the high ground in the Drug war by creating the DEA because he saw a gap in the opposition's platform that could be exploited to the Republican's advantage. As a consequence, and there is not doubt in MY mind about this, the War on Drugs has been THE SINGLE most corrosive influence on individual rights protected under the constitution. Currently, there is no position in the middle, you either support Law Enforcement or you are a dangerous liberal advocating chaos by letting children become drug addicts.

The strategy to demonize firearms, to eradicate "responsible" ownership and marginalize us "gun nuts" wouldn't work so long as people were comfortable with firearms. The resulting attack was to segregate the forms of gun ownership and training that had been developed by the NRA following the civil war for defense of our nation. Training had to be first removed from government institutions where it had become normalized and accessible by the public. Next, why do "you" need a gun when "we" have the police? It was a natural course of behavior and part of a plan. The part of the plan that failed was collectivism of the militia.

Why can't the unorganized militia defend the nation? Because "we" have the Army. However, "we" will decide when to deploy it and for what reason. So what are "you" (the People) going to do with their guns when "we" (the government) have assumed the "right" to defend the borders?

Yes it is binary, but the roots run deeper than for or agin' comfort of skill at arms. The People have surrendered too much power to the government. Power, of course is money. This power needs to be revoked. Government is too big. From this position, it is just a short trip to the conclusion that if you don't support the government -- you are a terrorist.

To be fair, I read that as the dissent pointing out a whole slew of questions that courts might find themselves faced with in the aftermath of the Court's decision. The section of the dissent containing that statement starts out: "determining the constitutionality of a particularstate gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions of a kind that legislatures are better able than courts to make."

The question was part of a list of questions that the dissent thought courts would find themselves having to answer, which are the types of questions better suited to legislative answers.

So the "when is a gun semi-automatic?" seems to me to be referring to the potential need to define the term in a particular case (e.g., a state regulation on semi-auto guns). The point being that courts should not be relied upon to come up with the appropriate legal definition of a "semi-automatic" firearm; that's the legislature's job.

Not that I'm buying the argument very much. I disagree that the McDonald decision will suddenly force the courts into the position of the legislature, anymore than any of the court's First Amendment cases have done so. What's the definition of "obscene"? Nobody knows, but as Justice Potter Stewart taught us, judges know it when they see it.