Are we REALLY for protection of the Second Amendment, or just a little piece of it?

The 2A restricts the behavior of government. In that sense, it protects the enumerated Right.

What are the arms mentioned in the 2A? It does not specifically say, so we must look to the historical context for the answer. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not new to the US. It existed in England prior to colonization. The idea came here with English colonists. The origin of the English RKBA were laws that created a Duty to Keep and Bear Arms. Those arms were originally swords, later bows and arrows, later yet crossbows, and finally firearms. Clearly the arms covered by the duty and later by the Right were the arms that typically have personal civilian uses but, in a pinch, could be used as one's personal military weapon.

At the time of the Framing, that would have included knives, long guns, hand guns, and ammunition. We can look to the militia laws of the time for a list of arms that militia members were required to own. Today's analogs are knives, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, and the like. Oh, and the ammo to feed them.

eye95 said:

The 2A restricts the behavior of government. In that sense, it protects the enumerated Right.

Clearly the arms covered by the duty and later by the Right were the arms that typically have personal civilian uses but, in a pinch, could be used as one's personal military weapon.

At the time of the Framing, that would have included knives, long guns, hand guns, and ammunition. We can look to the militia laws of the time for a list of arms that militia members were required to own. Today's analogs are knives, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles, and the like. Oh, and the ammo to feed them.

Click to expand...

What you're saying is essentially that, "arms" were virtually any tool that was designed, made or adapted for personal defense. The only weapon from the mid-1800s that isn't in common use today by our military is the officer/NCO saber/sabre (aka "sword"), the practical function of which has been replaced by the bayonet. That doesn't relegate the sword to the scrapheap, and in an up-close-and-personal confrontation it may still have a place. Like the gambler said, "Ya gotta play the hand ya got."

There are a few edged weapons that I have an affinity towards in case of HTHC - my Cold Steel machete, SOG tomahawk, Ka-Bar BK-2 and my Boker Magnum (completely discounting my really long blades, and a 7' long Assegai. Yes, I am ready for the "Zombie Apocalypse"). But, should my guns/ammo become inaccessible to me for some reason (i.e. - confiscated), and I haven't been killed during the process of their being made inaccessible, I will still have some defensive tools available (assuming we still have the Constitution as written). Pax...

The 2A protects nothing - the people's resistance to disarmament does the protecting. The Constitution (amendments included) merely delineates the powers of government. The actual protection is left as an exercise to the reader.

Click to expand...

True!

beebobby said:

Only if they are allowed by your militia.

Click to expand...

Where does this come into the picture? The Second Amendment has no such restriction.

09jisaac said:

Grenades, RPGs, machineguns,... mortars?

Click to expand...

Why not?

SouthernBoy said:

Where does this come into the picture? The Second Amendment has no such restriction.

Click to expand...

It used to be the very 1st line in the 2nd amendment until District of Columbia vs. Heller decided that the authors didn't really mean for the amendment to have anything to do with militias.

Once we win the war on personally firearms the others well come along.

It can and well be a fight but it makes a lot less sense to ban knifes ext. when someone can carry a firearm.

What we have seen is that once firearms are legal other types of weapons get allowed. It might not happen over night but it seems to happen.

The anti freedom types do not give up easy.

Jay Jacobs said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

These are clearly arguable, but I'd say they are not protected by the 2A because they are not the typical individual civilian arm that could be used in a pinch as a personal military weapon--as were all the weapons exemplified throughout the history of the duty and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That is not to say that they must be banned, restricted, or licensed, just that I don't believe that they are included in the "arms" of which the 2A speaks.

*sigh*

Other court rulings notwithstanding, the introductory clause to the 2A is merely explanatory. It tells us WHY all individuals have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is not restrictive, telling us the conditions under which that Right shall not be infringed. That other courts could not understand the simple English in this sentence means either that they were incredibly stupid or aggressively anti-RKBA or both.

The language of the 2A is very clear, especially when punctuated properly (as it was until it was finally transcribed; I am not convinced that anyone actually added those commas so much as swatted a pair of 18th-Century flies in an inopportune spots): A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ask your high school English teacher to diagram this sentence. You will see that the prefatory clause does not alter the meaning of the independent clause that follows.

It amazes me that this has to be explained to anyone who has been on this site more than a week.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

Once we win the war on personally firearms the others well come along.

It can and well be a fight but it makes a lot less sense to ban knifes ext. when someone can carry a firearm.

What we have seen is that once firearms are legal other types of weapons get allowed. It might not happen over night but it seems to happen.

The anti freedom types do not give up easy.

Click to expand...

True. If you fight too many battles at once, you will surely lose them all.

That is one of the things I love about OCDO. We are focused like a laser on one single facet of one single Right--and are fighting like Hell for it. And we are making enormous progress because of that focus!

Folks in Alabama fighting for their rights could well learn to focus!

beebobby said:

It used to be the very 1st line in the 2nd amendment until District of Columbia vs. Heller decided that the authors didn't really mean for the amendment to have anything to do with militias.

Click to expand...

The verbiage of the Second Amendment has not changed since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Pay close attention to the punctuation, particularly the comma following the opening phrase;

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What this creates is an appositive which appears before the subject. That first phrase is incidental to the body of the sentence, where the real subject exists.

I do believe there should be restrictions and that amendment stated has no restrictions as if anyone should have weapons without guidelines to follows FOID, Perk, etc. That's like saying anyone can drive an automobile, but you have to have guidelines as how to safely operate the vehicle and navigate the use of the vehicle on the streets without harm to others. BUT for law abiding citizens who took the proper channels should be 100% protected by this amendment and not treated like a criminal.

Are we REALLY for protection of the Second Amendment, or just a little piece of

*sigh*

There is no comparison between the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the privilege to operate tons of machinery on the public highways.

There is a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right to self-defense. This right is backed up by the enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second Amendment, which may not be infringed.

There is a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right to travel. That right is not backed up by an enumerated right to own and operate a vehicle on the public highways. That is where the analogy breaks down completely. Absent the Second Amendment, it would be reasonable for government to regulate firearms for the safety of society as long as the regulation did not inhibit the underlying right of self-defense. However, the Framers wisely understood that the reason that we won the American Revolution and were able to protect our God-given (or natural, if you prefer) rights was because we essentially had the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Hell, we had the DUTY! So, they enshrined that implementation of the right to self-defense in the Constitution.

They saw no need to enshrine any implementation of the right to travel in the Constitution, so as long as the underlying right is not unduly inhibited, regulating the implementation that is known as driving on the highways is reasonably subject to regulation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Wider View

eye95 said:

*sigh*

There is no comparison between the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the privilege to operate tons of machinery on the public highways.

There is a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right to self-defense. This right is backed up by the enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second Amendment, which may not be infringed.

There is a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right to travel. That right is not backed up by an enumerated right to own and operate a vehicle on the public highways. That is where the analogy breaks down completely. Absent the Second Amendment, it would be reasonable for government to regulate firearms for the safety of society as long as the regulation did not inhibit the underlying right of self-defense. However, the Framers wisely understood that the reason that we won the American Revolution and were able to protect our God-given (or natural, if you prefer) rights was because we essentially had the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Hell, we had the DUTY! So, they enshrined that implementation of the right to self-defense in the Constitution.

They saw no need to enshrine any implementation of the right to travel in the Constitution, so as long as the underlying right is not unduly inhibited, regulating the implementation that is known as driving on the highways is reasonably subject to regulation.

Click to expand...

In a way, your commentary makes sense. A wider view that includes some history on the Bill of Rights shows some holes.

Regarding "they saw no need to enshrine". The Framers saw no need to give any rights at all except those mentioned in the constitution itself. It was the demands by the opponents of the constitution that finally forced a highly reluctant Madison to start on a Bill of Rights in order to shut up enough of the opposition so the constitution could be ratified. The federalists certainly didn't enshrine rights--they didn't want them.

Madison solicited and received proposals from the states on which rights to include. He actually received more proposed rights than he ultimately included. That is to say, there were rights so well understood and accepted that states included them in their proposals, but Madison did not include them in his bill. He trimmed down the list. And, if I recall, even some of what Madison submitted to the congress were voted off the list by congress before the Amendment* was sent to the states.

So, the argument that the Framers enshrined rights is not supported by the facts. They certainly wouldn't have enshrined something to which they were opposed.

In light of Madison eliminating various state proposals for rights, drawing conclusions about the valitidty of certain rights based on whether one of them ended up on the list is a bad idea.

Moreover, relying on government for which rights are important or valid or whatever is folly. The Bill of Rights is just that--the list of rights government said it would go along with. But, never forget, only in the face of opposition to their main goal--the constitution itself.




The Bill of Rights was not originally ten amendments. Originally, the list was one amendment comprised of twelve articles of amendment. The twelve articles were pared down to ten by the fact that the states only ratified ten of the twelve articles. See the original at the National Archives website.

I don't think the "Founding Fathers" really intended that there be restrictions on weaponry classes above "personal" arms. Didn't some individuals have cannons pointing out their front windows in the early years of America? I think that things like that could hardly be considered "personal" and would in fact be some of the heaviest firepower available at the time.

But regardless of the scope of the 2A, I personally don't believe that an individual's right to own and bear arms stops at small or personal arms. I believe it stops at the point that they can reasonably own and bear those arms without that ownership or possession causing an enumerable, immediate danger to another person's physical wellbeing. By that I mean, for instance, if I don't know how to operate a tank safely, and I decide to take it for a spin, and people are having to jump out of my way to keep from getting their toes squished, then others have the right to stop me. If I do in fact know how to operate one without putting others at risk, then no one has a right to stop me. Obviously this means there would not be any across the board bans or allowances, and unfortunately this lends itself to subjectivity.

09jisaac said:

Grenades, RPGs, machineguns, SBR/SBS, mortars?

Click to expand...

Grenades and RPGs are ordnance, not arms. Machineguns are generally crew-served, not individual arms and are considered area weapons. Mortars are artillery. The problem with the above is that one can't limit the destructive effect to just one person.

I don't have a problem with SBR/SBS. I'd like to see them and suppressors removed from the NFA.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

stealthyeliminator said:

I don't think the "Founding Fathers" really intended that there be restrictions on weaponry classes above "personal" arms. Didn't some individuals have cannons pointing out their front windows in the early years of America? I think that things like that could hardly be considered "personal" and would in fact be some of the heaviest firepower available at the time.

But regardless of the scope of the 2A, I personally don't believe that an individual's right to own and bear arms stops at small or personal arms. I believe it stops at the point that they can reasonably own and bear those arms without that ownership or possession causing an enumerable, immediate danger to another person's physical wellbeing. By that I mean, for instance, if I don't know how to operate a tank safely, and I decide to take it for a spin, and people are having to jump out of my way to keep from getting their toes squished, then others have the right to stop me. If I do in fact know how to operate one without putting others at risk, then no one has a right to stop me. Obviously this means there would not be any across the board bans or allowances, and unfortunately this lends itself to subjectivity.

Click to expand...

The history (going all the way back to England and including pre-Revolutionary America) of the Right (and the Duty) to Keep and Bear Arms is full of examples of those arms. They have included swords, bows and arrows, knives, crossbows, handguns, and long guns.

I am not saying that there is not a right to keep and tow cannons, just that that is not the right the Framers were enumerating in the 2A. History tells us pretty clearly what they meant by the word "arms."

Elm Creek Smith said:

...I'd like to see them and suppressors removed from the NFA...

Click to expand...

I suspect that silencers...er...suppressors are on the NFA is because the authors watched too many movies. They learned that silencers...er...suppressors allow a bad guy to move about the house, shooting people in one room with those in the next none the wiser, and then moving on to that next room, until all the hapless victims are dead, no one having heard a thing more than what sounded like a held-back sneeze just before becoming another victim of the evil silencer...er...suppressor.

Elm Creek Smith said:

Grenades and RPGs are ordnance, not arms. Machineguns are generally crew-served, not individual arms and are considered area weapons. Mortars are artillery. The problem with the above is that one can't limit the destructive effect to just one person.

I don't have a problem with SBR/SBS. I'd like to see them and suppressors removed from the NFA.

ECS

Sent from my little slice of Heaven.

Click to expand...

I am responding to the text bolded by myself.

I'd just like to point out that the above is true in any circumstance - whether the operator is civilian, law enforcement or military, and whether the weaponry is being used in self-defense, law enforcement or war. This is just an issue of proper use, it doesn't really contribute to whether or not certain "classes" of people should be barred from possession. Basically, all this means is that those weapons aren't practical for self defense, but rights don't come with the contingency of their exercise being practical.

If all men are equal then restrictions resulting from the inability to limit destructive effect should be equally applied to all men. No?

eye95 said:

The history (going all the way back to England and including pre-Revolutionary America) of the Right (and the Duty) to Keep and Bear Arms is full of examples of those arms. They have included swords, bows and arrows, knives, crossbows, handguns, and long guns.

I am not saying that there is not a right to keep and tow cannons, just that that is not the right the Framers were enumerating in the 2A. History tells us pretty clearly what they meant by the word "arms."

Click to expand...

I haven't done as much research as you on that particular subject, I'll take your word for it For now at least

eye95 said:

SNIP

They saw no need to enshrine any implementation of the right to travel in the Constitution, so as long as the underlying right is not unduly inhibited, regulating the implementation that is known as driving on the highways is reasonably subject to regulation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

This is your statist side showing again.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073

The government does not have the right to control who can or cannot use their personal automobile on the pubic highways for non-commercial purposes. The government can create 'rules of the road' such as traffic lights, stop signs, right of way, one way, etc. The government can do those same things with firearms. No target shooting out of doors within city limits, no shooting game/pests within city limits, etc. The government cannot pass a law saying that you cannot draw your arms (gun) and use it for defensive purposes within city limits though.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108135.pdf

That is what the Georgia legislator has found. They even admit that their own state law is unconstitutional and they are trying to fix it to no long require a license.