Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Right To Bear Arms...

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Right To Bear Arms...

    *hopefully this is in the right section*

    Does it cover knives?

    An argument is being made that the Second Amendment also covers knives. Are knives "Arms?"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us...agewanted=2&hp

    "But the problem is with the knife wielder, not the knife itself, the knife lobby says, sounding very much like those who advocate for gun rights.
    In fact, knife advocates contend that the Second Amendment applies to knives as well as guns. They focus their argument elsewhere, though, emphasizing that knives fill so many beneficial roles, from carving Thanksgiving turkeys to whittling, that they do not deserve the bad name they often get."

    "“Arizona is now the model when it comes to knives,” said Mr. Rathner, who was a National Rifle Association lobbyist before he switched to knives. “We’re now going to be moving to other states, probably in the Rocky Mountains and the Southeast. There’s probably half a dozen or more places that are ripe for this.” "
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-05-2010 at 01:04 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    *hopefully this is in the right section*

    Does it cover knives?

    An argument is being made that the Second Amendment also covers knives. Are knives "Arms?"
    Of course it covers knives! Knives, swords, clubs, a board with a nail in it. Anything that can be used as a weapon in self defense or offense against an abusive government. I would say if it covers guns why -wouldn't- it cover knives or "edged weapons".
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    Of course it covers knives! Knives, swords, clubs, a board with a nail in it. Anything that can be used as a weapon in self defense or offense against an abusive government. I would say if it covers guns why -wouldn't- it cover knives or "edged weapons".
    Hmm...what about sporks?

    In all seriousness...is the topic of carrying knives against forum rules? I know that the focus is on handguns, but generally speaking, knives fall under the Second Amendment IMO.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-05-2010 at 04:46 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    When evaluating any part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, one must always make the best possible attempt at doing such with the original meaning and intent of the text. The Second Amendment's makes use of two items of interest which have caused much consternation and, for whatever reason, confusion in the minds of some. The use of the word, "arms" has been compared and matched to everything from long guns and hand guns, to tanks and even nuclear weapons. In fact, what it meant was an arm which was capable of being carried on or about the person.

    The other part of the amendment which has created stirs for many generations is, " well regulated militia". This phrase does not refer to drilling and conducting field training on a frequent basis. What it meant at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular".

    Hope this all helps.
    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!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Carried about the person; what ever Arm is able to be carried would fall under "Arms?"

    "Well regulated militia." "Well"..."Regulated"..."Militia." What was the reasoning behind these three words? At the time what was the context in which the term "well," "regulated," "militia" used? If each word had an intent, what did those three words, individual and collectively intent to mean?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    SouthernBoy: True. If you trace the history of the 2A back to its origins, hundreds of years before our amendment was penned, specific arms that are mentioned as being required to be carried or as something that the people have a right to own are hand-held arms that would typically be used by one individual and targeted at another individual during combat or self-defense, such as swords and bows and arrows.

    Clearly, the arms meant by the founders were the typical arms that an individual might have for personal use, but which could be used, in a pinch, as an individual arm in battle. Today's analogs would include such firearms as handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Logically, clubs and knives would be protected arms, too.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-05-2010 at 05:29 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Logically, clubs and knives would be protected arms, too.
    Because of their dual-utilitarian use?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    A "well regulated militia" was one that was equipped properly and sufficiently to be an effective unit of battle.

    The phrase has nothing to do with knowing how to drill, or there being rules and orders to keep the members "in line" or anything like that.

    Since the militia was composed of the "common citizens", as opposed to enlisted troops paid and provisioned by the government, they came to assembly with whatever they owned. Many militia had rules about what equipment was minimally required of its members, See generally
    http://www.suite101.com/content/form...ilitia-a102045

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

    http://www.dallascitytroop.org/history.html

    You will notice that even these articles disagree to some extent on just what arms the militia was to equip itself with - some say a .69 caliber musket, others say a fowling piece (shotgun) was OK. But pretty much overall they include a basic combat load-out of powder, shot, and edged piece of some sort. The militia had no need for bayonets, as they would not be charging massed ranks of hostile natives but going from defending the local fortification to hand-to-hand combat either inside the fort or out in the woods with the hostiles. You don't get a chance to reload in those circumstances, so an edged weapon - knife or tomahawk - becomes your means of offense and defense.

    stay safe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member dedeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    33

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    When evaluating any part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, one must always make the best possible attempt at doing such with the original meaning and intent of the text. The Second Amendment's makes use of two items of interest which have caused much consternation and, for whatever reason, confusion in the minds of some. The use of the word, "arms" has been compared and matched to everything from long guns and hand guns, to tanks and even nuclear weapons. In fact, what it meant was an arm which was capable of being carried on or about the person.

    The other part of the amendment which has created stirs for many generations is, " well regulated militia". This phrase does not refer to drilling and conducting field training on a frequent basis. What it meant at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular".

    Hope this all helps.
    Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    And Tomahawks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by dedeye View Post
    Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?
    males 18-45 are part of the unorganized militia at least as far as the militia act of 1903 is concerned. I'd say we are not well regulated though for the most part. Too few people own arms and are even close to proficient with their use. But yes you would be correct, militia are the citizens who take up arms.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    males 18-45 are part of the unorganized militia at least as far as the militia act of 1903 is concerned. I'd say we are not well regulated though for the most part. Too few people own arms and are even close to proficient with their use. But yes you would be correct, militia are the citizens who take up arms.
    80 million+ firearm owners (although I would like to see at least double that!) is the largest potential militia in the world. Most firearm owners I know do what I do, shoot on a regular basis...proficiency will not be an issue, although, there is always room for improvement of course...many of our waistbands might be a big issue. I have been fighting through bag of Doritos the past year

    W.S. Constitution

    "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    U.S. Constitution

    "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."

    The WA. state Constitution seems to contradict itself, or am I wrong. It states that we have the right to bear arms in defense of..."state." Then it goes on to say that it is not an authorization. How could one have the right to bear arms unimpaired for security of state if it in the same line it says that it is not authorized?

    Federal trumps state...are portions of the WA. state Constitution unConstitutional?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    80 million+ firearm owners (although I would like to see at least double that!) is the largest potential militia in the world. Most firearm owners I know do what I do, shoot on a regular basis...proficiency will not be an issue, although, there is always room for improvement of course...many of our waistbands might be a big issue. I have been fighting through bag of Doritos the past year

    W.S. Constitution

    "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    U.S. Constitution

    "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."

    The WA. state Constitution seems to contradict itself, or am I wrong. It states that we have the right to bear arms in defense of..."state." Then it goes on to say that it is not an authorization. How could one have the right to bear arms unimpaired for security of state if it in the same line it says that it is not authorized?

    Federal trumps state...are portions of the WA. state Constitution unConstitutional?
    million is too few.

    WA state seems a bit odd. I would argue that of course it is not an authorization, for freedom of association is a fundamental right that needs no authorization; although, constitutions are usually not written with tricky wording to fool people... Perhaps the authors of that constitution were the same ones that wrote the wording for my pistol permit.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Federal does not trump State.

    Federal law, within the constraints of the enumerated powers was intended to be enforced, regardless of State laws to the contrary, but the federal Constitution does not "trump" the State constitutions. Let's remember that the federal government, through the Constitution derives its powers from a grant of power by the States.

    Until relatively recently, the BoR did not in any way constrain the States. It was designed to constrain the federal government, hence many of the protections in the federal Constitution being repeated in the State constitutions.

    Until McDonald, the 2A did not constrain the States. (Although I believe it should have, even without the 14th Amendment, based upon its wording.)

    I really must speak out any statement like "Federal trumps [S]tate." It leads to perpetuating the common misconception that our nation functions top-down. It was designed to operate bottom-up: the States derived their power from the People, and the federal government derived its power from the States.

    Our Constitution does give some authority to the feds that they may constitutionally exercise over the States. But, remember, those powers not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the States and to the People.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    "SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

    Yes, Washington state constitution states that the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."

    So Federal law X that is a right under federal law can be enforced in a state that says X is not a right. But X law in a state saying it is not a right can not be enforced if Federal X law states that it's a right.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    million is too few.

    WA state seems a bit odd. I would argue that of course it is not an authorization, for freedom of association is a fundamental right that needs no authorization; although, constitutions are usually not written with tricky wording to fool people... Perhaps the authors of that constitution were the same ones that wrote the wording for my pistol permit.
    There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.
    Actually, it is odd. Why would the Constitution say you have the right to bear arms in defense of state, but not have the right to organize militia? What if the defense of state was a Constitutional issue and the state itself was what the individual(s) are defending against?

    Are you telling me that the founders intended for you to fight in defense of the state but not Constitutionally do it by militia...doesn't seem odd that we would be constitutionally free to defend our state in such a way that would be completely ineffective.

    The most effective way to fight in defense of the state is to form a militia. Each individual running around with their own independent plan would be for nothing but getting themselves overtaken quick.

    In reference to Washington state Constitution, it is odd. The only reason I could think the wordage would be in there is in the interest of the state, if the state were the one waging war against our constitutional rights.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-06-2010 at 01:23 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Carried about the person; what ever Arm is able to be carried would fall under "Arms?"

    "Well regulated militia." "Well"..."Regulated"..."Militia." What was the reasoning behind these three words? At the time what was the context in which the term "well," "regulated," "militia" used? If each word had an intent, what did those three words, individual and collectively intent to mean?
    My understanding is that the "Well Regulated malitia" would be: (from memory and feel welcome to correct this)
    Regularly trained male members of the community who were physically able aged 18-45 (Organized malitia) those >45 were part of the UNORGANIZED malitia.

    This predated the "professional paid police force." They were to provide their OWN weapons, ball, a powder.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by dedeye View Post
    Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?
    Yes, but that was not what was meant by the phrase, "a well regulated militia". There most certain were, and are, existing militia. The phrase in question which appears in the Second Amendment means "to keep and make regular". This would equate a citizen having an arm in his possession AND having it at the ready for times when such was necessary and needed.
    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!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    JoeSparky: There are posts earlier in the thread the explain the meaning of "well regulated militia" quite well.

    I know your post does not say that police forces were intended to replace militias, but it is easily inferred that that is the meaning. While there is some overlap between what a militia might do and what police do (e.g. protecting a community from rioters), the goals of a police force and the militia are quite different.

    The goals of a militia are protecting individuals, communities, States, and the nation from threats; and protecting the People from the government gone rogue. Police forces might have some role in the second two protections, but their focus is almost exclusively on the first two. Also, police forces will likely find their organization opposing the militia regarding the last goal, while many of its individual members may find themselves working with the militia against the police force.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-06-2010 at 08:21 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Keep in mind folks that all too often, contemporary thinking gets caught up in ideas and concepts that while in today's climate are sensitive and visceral in nature, were nothing of the sort in the late 1700's when our Bill of Rights was created as a formal document and part of the founding of the nation.

    For example, the issues of hunting and self defense as they relate to the Second Amendment. It seems when the need for and reason of the Second Amendment is debated, the arguments of hunting rights and those of self defense most always are raised. But at the time of the founding of the nation, no one in their right mind would have questioned the need for an Article to appear in the Bill of Rights to guarantee these freedoms. Hunting to feed yourself and your family and using your arms to defend both as well was unquestionable and as natural as breathing. Which means that there were other reasons for the inclusion of the Second Amendment. And there were.

    The Founders addressed those reasons in their writings on a number of occasions so it is very easy to see what they were thinking with the Second Amendment. And it wasn't hunting or self defense they were concerned about. It was the security of the nation (Note: the word "State" is capitalized) and its several states, AND as a guard against a government gone evil because there is another little-known fact that the Founders gave their American posterity.

    We are the only nation in the history of the world that at its founding, a most fundamental right was cast in writing in our founding document that is absolutely imperative for the continuation of a free people. We have the right, the Duty, to alter or abolish our government* through any means when it becomes destructive of our "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". In all of history, this is the core of what makes America so unique.

    * (Ref: the Declaration of Independence)
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-06-2010 at 08:35 AM.
    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!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.
    No you are wrong. It says:

    "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    not authorizing is not the same as prohibiting. Authorizing is for things that need permission. Rights do not need permission. The right in question is freedom of association and assembly which is protected by Washington constitution

    "SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."

    In simple form:

    Individuals have the right to bear arms
    Individuals have the right to associate
    therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
    groups of citizens bearing arms can be called militia
    therefore citizens have the right to form militias.

    Authorization is not needed.

  23. #23
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    No you are wrong. It says:

    "SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    not authorizing is not the same as prohibiting. Authorizing is for things that need permission. Rights do not need permission. The right in question is freedom of association and assembly which is protected by Washington constitution

    "SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged."

    In simple form:

    Individuals have the right to bear arms
    Individuals have the right to associate
    therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
    groups of citizens bearing arms can be called militia
    therefore citizens have the right to form militias.

    Authorization is not needed.
    As long as no one actually calls it a "MILITIA"!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    As long as no one actually calls it a "MILITIA"!
    Posse...maybe? Hmmm....Regulators
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    ...In simple form:

    Individuals have the right to bear arms
    Individuals have the right to associate
    therefore individuals have the right to assemble in groups bearing arms
    ...
    Not faulting your conclusions, just demonstrating where your logic might be faulty:

    Adults may lawfully drink.
    Adults may lawfully drive.
    Therefore individuals may lawfully drink and drive.

    This is not a perfect analogy, but it is not meant to be. It is just illustrating that two statements true in isolation are not necessarily true in combination.

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
  •