Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Is there a line on the 2nd Amendment?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    For the sake of discussing the 2nd Amendment, do you feel there is a line on what "arms" is, or do you think there is no line, what so ever?

    If there is a line (which nothing in the 2nd Amendment specifies a line, or a limit on how many or what type of "arms" you may have), why do you feel it should be drawn?

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    shall not be infringed...
    so if you can swing it,, keep and bear your very own nuke!:celebrate
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Even if you treat the militia clause as the focus of the whole thing, you have to be allowed to keep and bear any arms that would be necessary to the militia.

    If you agree that the militia should be as well armed as the government (remember, most of the founding fathers were against a standing army), then why shouldn't we have privately owned bazookas, RPGs, SAM launchers, tactical nukes, ICBMs or anything else as long as we could afford to keep it and bear it?

    If the people should not be scared of the government, why does the government get to have tanks and I can't have a way to bust them?

    Is it reasonable? No, not really. But it is a good mental exercise on why 'shall not be infringed' should not be infringed. :celebrate
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:

    If the people should not be scared of the government, why does the government get to have tanks and I can't have a way to bust them?

    Because the Government does fear the people, which is why they do infringe on the rights.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    no line, please read:

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...amp;topic=4797

    I don't think that nukes or biological weapons should, for the collatoral damage of such weapons are rediculous in comaparison to all others. The rest is fair game. One must understand the purpose of the 2A before attempting to answer such Q's. Otherwise your likely to come up with .22shorts or 1" pocket knife being the only legal weapon.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    When discussing these sorts of things, we must always defer to the meaning of the words at the time they were written. For example, the phrase, "A well regulated Militia" contains the word "regulated". In more recent interpretations (the bain of reading these documents), this word has taken on the meaning of "control" or "disciplined". This was done primarily as a means to argue that privately owned firearms were not desirable because Joe-American was not out "regulating" himself on a timely basis with his local militia. In fact, the word "regulated", when written into the Second Amendment, meant "to keep and make regular.

    Now lets apply this to the word "arms". In the Bill of Rights, this word refers to weapons which can be carried on or about the person.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    U.S. military is barred from acting against it's citizens.

    ......but we now have the standing army in the many LEA's and police forces so I personally think that any arms they are allowed to attain we are have the right to keep and bear.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Yes, I believe there is a line.

    The line is most reasonably drawn at arms that an individual would have brought to the militia with them. Those arms would have been individually-carried arms that people would have used for reasons such as personal protection and hunting. These weapons would not have been designed for military use, but would have filled that role in a pinch. Today's analogs would be handguns, rifles, and shotguns, to name just a few. They would not include, for example, artillery and nuclear weapons.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I have never read of anybody, no matter how wealthy, bringing his own cannon to the Revolutionary Army. I suppose it's possible that a few individuals may have bought cannon for use in the Army once they decided to join, but that's different than bringing already-owned ones.

    My opinion is this: Any weapon that can be readily used, serviced, and maintained by one person is eligible for ownership by the populace at large.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    At the time of the amending to include the Bill of Rights, the word arms meant weapons with no distinction between firearms, sidearms, and cannons. Cannons being the ultimate weapon of the time. The ultimate weapon of today is not restricted by 2A and should not be by the feds. The states can however, restrict anything they like.

    I know a lot of you are going to argue for incorporation, so here goes on that subject. 14A does not, I repeat, DOES NOT incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. It was meant to tell the states that they simply could not pass one law for one group of citizens and another law for the rest. This is not just my opinion, it is the intent at the time of writing and ratification of 14A. The men in black have really went overboard on this one.

    Now, do I think that 2A should be incorporated? NO, not really. I do however suppport it because I am all too happy to use the tactics of the group that we are at odds with. Another example would be on government run health care. Why not use Roe v. Wade (which I do not agree with)to kill it. After all, SCOTUS has already said in Roe v. Wade thatthe patient/doctor relationshipis a matter of privacy and none of the government's business.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Can you cite a reference that the authors of the 2A meant weapons with no distinction? I have heard this assertion before, but have seen no references cited.

    And, I am not talking a dictionary definition, either. What did the framers mean with the sentence, (not what did the word, in isolation, mean)?

  12. #12
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    IMO. the common man would have a musket or a pistol, maybe both. That is pretty much what would be on the mind of our founders.

    The use of common sense should never be underutilized.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    I would say any weapon that would allow you to eliminate a threat, with 'minimal' risk of harm to nearby innocents.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    If the 2A was only intended for individual service type weapons, then why was it historically permissible to outfit private merchant vessels as they were? Keep in mind that some of the smaller vessels didn’t have just one but fourteen or more crew served weapons.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Obviously no one read my link. The 2A was written for the people to stay in charge not tyrants. How well could the people fight with "limited" arms against a tyrant/s with unlimited arms. Do you think they didn't know what they were doing when they wrote "Shall not be infringed"?

    After all it was not long ago and they were fighting with sword and shield. They Knew that new weapons would come about and was necessary to keep the people in power.

    Don't overlook the bleeding obvious...

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Trip report - Wisc. Town Lawyers Conference, "Constitutional Issues Arising From Guns, Religion

    Landmark Decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):... guarantee the individual right ...
    Commented that the Justice examined and defined each word and clause of the 2A resolving years of questions and foreclosing debate.
    1. Well regulated militia: ... implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...
    Admits the possibility of "municipal required training".

    2. Security of a Free State: ... terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, ...

    3. People: ... not an unspecified subset.

    4. Bear: ... armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person."

    5. Keep:

    6. Arms: "The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today." ... Another 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."


  17. #17
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    steveman01 wrote:
    Obviously no one read my link. The 2A was written for the people to stay in charge not tyrants. How well could the people fight with "limited" arms against a tyrant/s with unlimited arms. Do you think they didn't know what they were doing when they wrote "Shall not be infringed"?

    After all it was not long ago and they were fighting with sword and shield. They Knew that new weapons would come about and was necessary to keep the people in power.

    Don't overlook the bleeding obvious...
    No, I read your post and understand your point. I dont think its a good idea for every household to have rocket launchers, grenades or other "war" weapons. if you can say that the "boyz in da hood" should have access to high explosives and rocket propelled grenade launchers, you need to step away from the crack pipe.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Flyer22

    My family loaned cannons and mortars to Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans.Family kept them until 1920's-30's at which time they were sold off
    and some donated to museums because of a lack of interest by said family.

    Btw, my family brought cannons,mortars and other "arms"to Canada
    in 1639 and then to Louisiana in 1699 as private citizens and kept a
    private arsenal until the Civil War.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    A lot offolks possessed cannons, especially if you had a private ship.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Stafford_1911 wrote:
    If the 2A was only intended for individual service type weapons, then why was it historically permissible to outfit private merchant vessels as they were? Keep in mind that some of the smaller vessels didn’t have just one but fourteen or more crew served weapons.
    The individuals (the 2A is an individual right) did not keep and bear the cannons.

    Of course, there was no law (none that I know of anyway) against people or merchant vessel owners having cannons. My point was not that there should have been a law, just that owning a cannon could be outlawed since I don't believe that was a right that the Founders were protecting.

    Some things that are not rights are also not outlawed.

  21. #21
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    Let's face it, Eye, as you said, if you can't "bear" it, does it count? You can't bear a cannon, but you can carry a LAW or RPG. Not that it would be an appropriate weapon for self-defense...sort of overkill and you have to beware of "fallout" or residual effects. The main weapons for the average soldier are still the handgun, rifle and knife (bayonet). You can't carry a nuke, an F-15, or ICBM. Even the average soldier didn't carry an M-60 as it was considered more of a "squad weapon". Someone had to carry the M-60, the tri-pod and the belt-fed ammo boxes. But, everything except knives, handguns, rifles and shotguns falls outside the range of self-defense. Even cops don't carry these weapons on a daily basis and military squads are not issued them unless they are going into an area where they may be needed. So, in the real world where we live and work...anything outside handguns, knives, rifles, or shotguns would fall outside an "individual" right. But, that's just my opinion, of course.

    Of course, private contractors can still get more weapons legally. They can afford the prices and storage for large automatic weapons, explosives (grenades, claymores, etc.) and LAW's or RPG's. To quote a popular movie: With great power comes great responsibility. If you're gonna own them, you're gonna be responsible for them. I'm all for having what you can be responsible for. Less government and more responsibility. I'm sure the trial lawyers will agree with that one!
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    The standard I applied was not the ability to carry the weapon. These days, if one has the wherewithal to acquire a suitcase nuke, one can easily bear it. (Arguments that the 2A includes nukes are just plain silly. So, clearly there is a line.)

    My point was that the line should be drawn in the logical place according to the weapons that the Founders would have expected folks to bring with them when the militia met, the typical arms that one would have for personal reasons, such as hunting and self-defense. Today's analog would be a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle, to name just three reasonable arms along the lines of what the Framers must have envisioned.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    My personal thoughts on the founders intentions was absolutely zero limits or restrictions, cite the fact of privately owned ships armed with cannons, and that being the "ultimate weapon" of the day. Imagine collateral damage of an angry citizen using the ship against a coastal town, yet, how much did that really happen? Also cite that back then, and for many years after, you could own, craft, keep your own explosives, such as ketchum grenades, and later dynamite (developed in the 1860's), and no one really ran around blowing stuff up when they were angry. Eventually powers that be started creating laws on ownership (vs. usage) and thus dawned the age of regulations. Through that evolved laws and legislation that we have today.

    - My personal thoughts (or comfort lines) would be: Anything that can be carried and fired by a single person, and that does not have a projectilewhich is explosive in natureafter it leaves the weapon is completely unregulated as per ownership and carrying. Anything past that point should have some measure of regulation, mostly in regards to general safety of storage and maintenance to avoid collateral damage due to miss use or improper handling.discharge of weapons should have some reasonable regulations. I dont want my neighbor storing a rocket that he cant maintain, ka-boom and blows out the side of my house, or shooting his AK in his backyard when he is drunk or has a folly. Other than some common sense precautionary stuff, i dont care what he owns or keeps. I'd love to have bigger badder toys than i currently have, but safety is important too.

    - Whats your point Bat? Well - lets consider a minute, if the signing fathers had the capacity to envision machine guns, modern guided rockets, armed airplanes, nukes etc. and if so, would the 2-A read the same? or would they have further clarified? - Personally, i think the concept of modern arms would have created considerable contention, however i believe they would have still strived to write a 2-A that ensured the citizenship retainedan upper hand. I believe there may have been alot more emphasis on privatized heavy weapons, and more than likely alot more definition on what they expected from the militia in regards to it being controlled by "we the People" instead ofa government army. In other words, you likely could own a nuke, if you had the capacity to maintain it, store it, and your militia commander had an amount of control on it's employment. - Just a wild guess there, but that may have been the case. Imagine for a minute, if the federal gov collapsed, States went through a few years of utter chaos, and from the ashes, you me, and a handful of others, regained stability across the nation, then redrafted a constitution, based on the original founders intent... How would we word or draft our 2-A. Would we give unlimited weapons reserve to everyone and anyone? What restrictions (if any) would we set. -- Interesting to fathom eh? - Well, some of the the crew already talks of breakdown and revolution, so what if it did happen, what will we do when we restore ournation and create a new government (theoretical here guys), will we simply recycle the original constitution? or draft a new one, will it be based off of the original regards to a modern times? or mirror the old? - interesting to contemplate.

    - I am sure i opened up a can of worms for a debate - my bad.

    If so, lets have fun with this one, my views are not meant to incite, upset, or challenge anyone position.Some of it is pure devils advocate or speculation to create though. I bade we debate in a friendly and considerate manner.


    - This is one of my favorite topics, though i admit to not having made my mind up 100% on where "the line" is for me... yet, I can say, compaired to most, it is pretty far out there, pretty close to 100% unrestricted, at least with small arms.

    Bat
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    I would NOT want the folks on here writing a 2A.

    Stick with the old one, it's perfect.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Trip report - Wisc. Town Lawyers Conference, "Constitutional Issues Arising From Guns, Religion

    Landmark Decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008):... guarantee the individual right ...
    Commented that the Justice examined and defined each word and clause of the 2A resolving years of questions and foreclosing debate.
    1. Well regulated militia: ... implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training...
    Admits the possibility of "municipal required training".

    2. Security of a Free State: ... terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, ...

    3. People: ... not an unspecified subset.

    4. Bear: ... armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person."

    5. Keep:

    6. Arms: "The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today." ... Another 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."
    You may find this interesting - a deconstruction of the Second Amendment as done by an English Professor:

    http://www.gunthorp.com/Second%20ame...0explained.htm



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •