Where is the line drawn?

imported post

No, that does not necessarily follow.  Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors.  The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.

Click to expand...

Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.

imported post

I said that automatic was arguable because it was beside the point I was trying to make. I was hoping to avoid the whole semiautomatic/automatic thing because I thought it would be a distraction.

Possibly, the question is best discussed in a thread that asks, "If you think there is a limit to the capabilities of 2A-protected weapons, should that limit allow automatic weapons?" I would join that discussion, but will deliberately avoid that specific question here.

imported post

A difference that makes no difference. Over and out.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

No, that does not necessarily follow. Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors. The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.

Click to expand...

Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.

Click to expand...

The 2A clearly protects the right to own and carry guns, so the point you are making is outside the scope of reality and not worth considering. The question before us is what, in addition to guns, does the 2A mean by the word "arms"?

I am contending that "arms" means the typical weapon that one would have for hunting and self-defense while still being useful as a personal military weapon. If the Founders were around today, and specifically asked, I suspect they'd say typical hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I think they'd all agree that we should carry semiautomatics. I think there'd be a heated discussion on automatics. I think there'd be a consensus against artillery, bombs, and the like. They'd likely want those in an armory under the control of the militia.

imported post

Anyone see that drive-by bilging?

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

No, that does not necessarily follow. Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors. The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.

Click to expand...

Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.

Click to expand...

The 2A clearly protects the right to own and carry guns, so the point you are making is outside the scope of reality and not worth considering. The question before us is what, in addition to guns, does the 2A mean by the word "arms"?

I am contending that "arms" means the typical weapon that one would have for hunting and self-defense while still being useful as a personal military weapon. If the Founders were around today, and specifically asked, I suspect they'd say typical hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I think they'd all agree that we should carry semiautomatics. I think there'd be a heated discussion on automatics. I think there'd be a consensus against artillery, bombs, and the like. They'd likely want those in an armory under the control of the militia.

Click to expand...

The problem I see with your definition of "arms" is that it uses our modern conception of guns. We,today, look at weapons as specialized instruments(hunting, self-defense, semi-automatic, etc.). During the founding fathers time their "arms" were muti-purpose. They hunted,defended themselves, and fought with the same weapon. They made no distinction between the guns they used for war and the guns they used for food. With that in mind, today it should not matter what type of gun it is(semi, shotgun, artillery, etc.)it's still "arms"





“
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.
”



I also think you miss the part of the 2nd amendment which I feel is more on point. We are charged to provide the security of a free State, even from itself. To do this we must have the instruments to do so. Whilethe argument can be madethat a single shot Handi-Rifle is fundamentally the same as a full auto AK-47, both fire a projectile, we all know there are oceans of difference. It is for this reason I believe that the "Government" or if you prefer the "State" cannot keep from it's citizens the very instruments it deems necessary to defend and protect itself.

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

No, that does not necessarily follow. Successful revolutions start with the populace less well armed than the oppressors. The key is that the populace is armed, not necessarily that they are well-armed.

Click to expand...

Using that logic couldn't all guns be banned? I mean, you would still have steak knives to repel occupying armies.

Click to expand...

The 2A clearly protects the right to own and carry guns, so the point you are making is outside the scope of reality and not worth considering. The question before us is what, in addition to guns, does the 2A mean by the word "arms"?

I am contending that "arms" means the typical weapon that one would have for hunting and self-defense while still being useful as a personal military weapon. If the Founders were around today, and specifically asked, I suspect they'd say typical hunting rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I think they'd all agree that we should carry semiautomatics. I think there'd be a heated discussion on automatics. I think there'd be a consensus against artillery, bombs, and the like. They'd likely want those in an armory under the control of the militia.

Click to expand...

The problem I see with your definition of "arms" is that it uses our modern conception of guns. We,today, look at weapons as specialized instruments(hunting, self-defense, semi-automatic, etc.). During the founding fathers time their "arms" were muti-purpose. They hunted,defended themselves, and fought with the same weapon. They made no distinction between the guns they used for war and the guns they used for food. With that in mind, today it should not matter what type of gun it is(semi, shotgun, artillery, etc.)it's still "arms"





“
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.
”



I also think you miss the part of the 2nd amendment which I feel is more on point. We are charged to provide the security of a free State, even from itself. To do this we must have the instruments to do so. Whilethe argument can be madethat a single shot Handi-Rifle is fundamentally the same as a full auto AK-47, both fire a projectile, we all know there are oceans of difference. It is for this reason I believe that the "Government" or if you prefer the "State" cannot keep from it's citizens the very instruments it deems necessary to defend and protect itself.

Click to expand...

I am specifically considering the context of today's arms. If I weren't, I'd be saying that the 2A protects our right to bear muskets. In today's context, I contend that the 2A protects our right to bear handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

I am deliberately avoiding the auto/semi-auto discussion because, if some wish to discuss it, I think it deserves its own thread to do it justice.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.

Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.

I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test.

Click to expand...

That is quite interesting.

Most of ALL writings of the founders referencing arms and the 2nd amendment that I have ever read, have dealt with direct conflict between the people and the govt. I don't recall anything about "self defense" or "hunting". I'm sure there are some quotes out there, but like I said, mostly all of the ones I've read have to deal with people vs govt. This being the case, it's ludicrous to assume that the govt should have certain weapons and restrict the people from having them.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

That is quite interesting.

Most of ALL writings of the founders referencing arms and the 2nd amendment that I have ever read, have dealt with direct conflict between the people and the govt. I don't recall anything about "self defense" or "hunting". I'm sure there are some quotes out there, but like I said, mostly all of the ones I've read have to deal with people vs govt. This being the case, it's ludicrous to assume that the govt should have certain weapons and restrict the people from having them.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are correct smitty. The Constitution is all about protecting the people from the government.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is spend 5 minutes reading quotes from the founders about firearms and government power to figure that one out.

imported post

The hunting and self-defense provide a background. Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have: the kind used for hunting and self-defense. When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them. So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

The hunting and self-defense provide a background. Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have: the kind used for hunting and self-defense. When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them. So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, however, it certainly does not line up with the founders (evident) intentions of the 2A. Everyone was understood to be militia (armed citizenry). The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense (in the public sense). Historically, that is factually incorrect.

I'm actually surprised to see you attempt such an argument.

imported post

:banghead: One more (and last) time. I am not saying that hunting and self-defense provide the reasoning for the 2A. They provide the backdrop. That backdrop helps us understand which arms the Founders were talking about: the ones that 18th-century Americans would have brought with them when the militia was called up. They would bring the same arms that they used for hunting and self-defense. Therefore, those were the kind of arms that the Founders pictured in their minds as they authored the 2A.

Absent any specific definition of arms by the Founders (which I have never run across in any of my reading), we have to glean that definition from historical context and translate it to today's analog.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

:banghead: One more (and last) time. I am not saying that hunting and self-defense provide the reasoning for the 2A. They provide the backdrop. That backdrop helps us understand which arms the Founders were talking about: the ones that 18th-century Americans would have brought with them when the militia was called up. They would bring the same arms that they used for hunting and self-defense. Therefore, those were the kind of arms that the Founders pictured in their minds as they authored the 2A.

Absent any specific definition of arms by the Founders (which I have never run across in any of my reading), we have to glean that from historical context and translate that definition to today's analog.

Click to expand...

And you would still be incorrect. Those weapons that they had, were the most technically and mechanically advanced ones available at that time in history. It had NOTHING to do with hunting or self defense, as obviously stated if you research the founders intentions instead of insisting on this unfounded notion.

Yes, they were the same weapons they used for hunting. However, if it were a modern comparison of back then until now, they would probably be using LAR10's and .50 Barrett's just the same. Your idea here is backwards in theory. The primary purpose of the 2A was to defend against a tyrannical government, therefore all other purposes and uses are secondary and potentially even unimportant.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
-Thomas Jefferson


There is a reason it was put so bluntly many times via their writings.


Now, unless I am misunderstanding your statements, it looks to me like you're saying the 2A was only intended for hunting/self defense, and/or the only types of weapons used back then for such things are what was originally intended. If either is the case they are both still incorrect. The purpose surpasses the availability of weaponry at that particular point in history, or the secondary uses of said weaponry.

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The hunting and self-defense provide a background.  Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have:  the kind used for hunting and self-defense.  When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them.  So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, however, it certainly does not line up with the founders (evident) intentions of the 2A.  Everyone was understood to be militia (armed citizenry).  The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense (in the public sense).  Historically, that is factually incorrect.

I'm actually surprised to see you attempt such an argument. 

Click to expand...

The 2A doesn't state for self-defense but if you read the 13A of the Pennsylvania Constitution(signed by B. Franklin in Sept. 1776) you would see that it states, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." So even if it isn't in the US const.(self-defence part) it's pretty safe to say that they had that in mind, but the MAIN thing was being able to fight tyranny.

imported post

vegasche1023 wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The hunting and self-defense provide a background. Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have: the kind used for hunting and self-defense. When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them. So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, however, it certainly does not line up with the founders (evident) intentions of the 2A. Everyone was understood to be militia (armed citizenry). The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense (in the public sense). Historically, that is factually incorrect.

I'm actually surprised to see you attempt such an argument.

Click to expand...

The 2A doesn't state for self-defense but if you read the 13A of the Pennsylvania Constitution(signed by B. Franklin in Sept. 1776) you would see that it states, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." So even if it isn't in the US const.(self-defence part) it's pretty safe to say that they had that in mind, but the MAIN thing was being able to fight tyranny.

Click to expand...

Several states specifically mention self-defense.

I have read some here argue that the right to self-defense is one we enter the social compact with and one which society should not abridge. From that innate right, the right to collective self-defense (the militia) is derived. It is also natural to extrapolate that right to the collective defending itself against tyranny.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

vegasche1023 wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The hunting and self-defense provide a background. Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have: the kind used for hunting and self-defense. When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them. So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, however, it certainly does not line up with the founders (evident) intentions of the 2A. Everyone was understood to be militia (armed citizenry). The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense (in the public sense). Historically, that is factually incorrect.

I'm actually surprised to see you attempt such an argument.

Click to expand...

The 2A doesn't state for self-defense but if you read the 13A of the Pennsylvania Constitution(signed by B. Franklin in Sept. 1776) you would see that it states, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." So even if it isn't in the US const.(self-defence part) it's pretty safe to say that they had that in mind, but the MAIN thing was being able to fight tyranny.

Click to expand...

Several states specifically mention self-defense.

I have read some here argue that the right to self-defense is one we enter the social compact with and one which society should not abridge. From that innate right, the right to collective self-defense (the militia) is derived. It is also natural to extrapolate that right to the collective defending itself against tyranny.

Click to expand...

Every state constitution says "self defense and the state".

The topic was 2A, not the state constitution.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

vegasche1023 wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The hunting and self-defense provide a background. Those were simply the kinds of arms 18th-century Americans would have: the kind used for hunting and self-defense. When called into the militia, that's the kind of arm they'd bring with them. So, it is logical to assume that that is the kind or arms to which the 2A is refers.

Today's analog would be rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, however, it certainly does not line up with the founders (evident) intentions of the 2A. Everyone was understood to be militia (armed citizenry). The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense (in the public sense). Historically, that is factually incorrect.

I'm actually surprised to see you attempt such an argument.

Click to expand...

The 2A doesn't state for self-defense but if you read the 13A of the Pennsylvania Constitution(signed by B. Franklin in Sept. 1776) you would see that it states, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." So even if it isn't in the US const.(self-defence part) it's pretty safe to say that they had that in mind, but the MAIN thing was being able to fight tyranny.

Click to expand...

Several states specifically mention self-defense.

I have read some here argue that the right to self-defense is one we enter the social compact with and one which society should not abridge. From that innate right, the right to collective self-defense (the militia) is derived. It is also natural to extrapolate that right to the collective defending itself against tyranny.

Click to expand...

As already stated, the 2A was the topic, not the state constitution. I've read many state constitutions and all of them state the same thing about "defense of themselves and the state".

Bear in mind that the states back then were each their own country essentially. The federal govt was so small at that time that they virtually had no say in anything that went on. Therefore, the argument further solidifies the truths that the founders spoke of in defense of tyranny (states of people vs govt).

At this point the argument is completely laughable, as there is literally no way to retain any coherent thought of self defense against the govt. If they wanted anyone dead, they'd be dead with the push of a button. I was simply arguing the original intent from the founders' perspective, concerning the 2A.

imported post

smttysmth02gt wrote:

The topic was 2A, not the state constitution.

Click to expand...

It was? Read the OP again.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

As already stated, the 2A was the topic, not the state constitution. I've read many state constitutions and all of them state the same thing about "defense of themselves and the state".

Click to expand...

Well, the question then becomes (and I know, I am talking about state constitutions!), exactly whom are the people supposed to be defending the state from? Would it not be assumed that the attackers of the state would have fully automatic weapons and beyond? So then, exactly how are we supposed to come to the state's aid if we the people can't possess the same type of firearms that we would assume attackers to the state would have?

Click to expand...

Read my first post on this page.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

smttysmth02gt wrote:

The topic was 2A, not the state constitution.

Click to expand...

It was? Read the OP again.

Click to expand...

I was not addressing the OP when I began posting in this thread at all. If I gave you that impression I apologize. To put it in as simple terms as possible.....my statements were in direct relevance to ONLY the 2A.