• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is there a line on the 2nd Amendment?

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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?
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
imported post

no line, please read:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2209160841&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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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)?
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
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.
 

HyDef

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
51
Location
, ,
imported post

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

Stafford_1911

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
44
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
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.
 

steveman01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
111
Location
guntersville, Alabama, USA
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...
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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."
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
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.
 

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Top