2nd amendment definition of "arms"

[JohnnyE]

I do not believe that Americans should be able to buy hand grenades, C4 explosives, chemical weapons, Claymore mines, etc to prepare for the violent overthrow of the US Government. We will need these to battle US Marines and M1 Tanks? No thanks to this sort of mayhem. I am not going to war against Americans. Ballots not Bullets are wiser weapons to free our selves from "tyranny". Trump isn't that bad is he? I have been in combat and used standard infantry weapons in close range encounters with North Vietnamese troops. I don't need to see combat in the USA.

I think that's great, but sounds rather limited to the extent we end up in a situation you can foresee. Think, on the other hand, how 2A rights exist for the people to be prepared for circumstances that we cannot foresee, or are too horrible to envision.

 

[gemihur]

... say what you will about interpreting definitions but what about the "shall not be infringed" part.
That went by the wayside long ago...

 

[johnnyu]

not biting

I agree with one of the first postings on this. Tell us about the "all enemies foreign and domestic" part, especially "domestic". They are trying to steer the country off of the Constitution, using this fishing crap as a seemingly innocent way to make us trip over our own feet. I'm not biting.

 

[kcbrown]

We're pretty much on the same page. The only difference I can see is that I worry a bit less about defending myself from a tyrannical government and more about some scumbag breaking in my house with the intent to do harm.

I agree with this as well. But the OP did ask about the arms protected by the 2nd Amendment, and while defense against some dirtbag who intends to bring harm to you is obviously included in the protected right (it's so obvious that it shouldn't require mentioning, but some people are so obtuse that it takes a Supreme Court case that comes out and says it before they'll believe it ), the militia justification is explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment, and obviously provides a minimum justification for protection of the right and, thus, provides the minimum litmus test as to which arms are protected. This is inescapable, but some people (most especially courts that are so hostile to the right that they'll say anything in order to neuter it ) seem to want to ignore the stated purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, and what that purpose demands, anyway.

 

[Mega]

You answered your own question.

The First is not limited to feather quills any more than the Second is limited to muskets.

 

[bobb10010x]

ARMS

hey guys i was wondering if we could start a debate on the legal definition of arms in the 2nd amendment. now if you look at the 2nd amendment, where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS" now my question is that the term "arms" is used in a very broad way. does the word "arms" include assault rifles and machine guns and class 3? ill let you be the judge.

EDIT: sorry i had to go but ill elaborate on this subject. lets just say congress puts in an assault rifle ban. could one go to court and argue that the ban is unconstitutional because the 2nd amendment does not elaborate on what kinds of arms that are protected by the 2nd amendment? im only asking this because it brings up a very good argument.

My perception of the framers is they were referring to those weapons commonly in use at that time and fully understood that technology would advance and therefore weaponry would advance as well. Their broad use of the term "ARMS" was, I believe, fully designed to advance with technology and include those arms currently in common use at any given point in time. There is no reason to perceive "ARMS" does not include M.G.s, ClassIII and so forth. By the way, the term "assault rifle(weapon)" has been mis-used by the liberal socialists and their media outlets since about 1975. If you look up assault rifle or assault weapon the actual definition (Wikipedia, Webster, Funk&Wagnalls, etc.) states that assault weapons have selective fire capabilities for semi-auto, burst, and/or full auto. So what is generally referred to as assault weapons are, in fact, the semi-auto civilian version of commonly used TRUE assault weapons.

 

[cowboy321]

I don't know what would disturb me more: knowing exactly why you would callously disrespect a combat veteran's viewpoint the way you just did...or exactly what conditions would need to prevail for you to defend yourself with the types of armament you claim is your 2A right to own. In either case, I really don't care. Your credibility just went out the window with your mock patriotism.

Thanks for playing, indeed.

Am not trying to be difficult but I have seen a contested election- Al Gore vs George Bush 43. The judicial branch weighed in. Gore's supporters did not begin stockpiling weapons and arguing for the right to buy rocket launchers and hand grenades in preparation for Civil War with other Americans.

When I hear arguments by people who want to begin stockpiling these weapons, I am not amused. The aforementioned weapons desired are for use in the USA. We have a functioning democracy. Prepping for violent overthrow of the government with military weapons to be used against our fellow citizens is too much for me and for about 99% of Americans. I have put Americans in body bags in Vietnam. I don't need to do it here.

People need to visit the Gettysburg cemetery.

 

[Occam]

Am not trying to be difficult but I have seen a contested election- Al Gore vs George Bush 43. The judicial branch weighed in. Gore's supporters did not begin stockpiling weapons and arguing for the right to buy rocket launchers and hand grenades in preparation for Civil War with other Americans.

That's because Gore's supporters had no reason to think that an incoming Bush administration would be any sort of direct threat to their right to defend themselves, and weren't hearing Bush calling for the confiscation of their means of that self defense. The atmospherics now are FULL of progressive types calling for exactly that. See the difference?

The aforementioned weapons desired are for use in the USA. We have a functioning democracy.

What we have is a (just hanging on by its toenails!) functioning constitutional republic. The risk is that we will BECOME a "functioning democracy," where mob rule driven by emotion and ignorance will shape public policy. We're seeing that threat in plain language, now. The same left that is coming right out and telling you they don't think you should be allowed to defend yourself is also coming out and saying the electoral college should be abolished so that the popular vote can win national elections. See the difference?

Prepping for violent overthrow of the government

Easy, there. Yes, it sounds over the top when you put it that way. But if you phrase it instead as, "Prepping for at least some sort of fight against someone else who has overthrown the government, by way of marginalizing the constitution and sending people to your door to collect your means of self defense..." then it sounds alarming still (because the entire topic IS alarming), but far less crazy.

 

[kcbrown]

Am not trying to be difficult but I have seen a contested election- Al Gore vs George Bush 43. The judicial branch weighed in. Gore's supporters did not begin stockpiling weapons and arguing for the right to buy rocket launchers and hand grenades in preparation for Civil War with other Americans.

You're reading far too much into what's being said.

The question was simple and straightforward: what does the 2nd Amendment mean by "arms"? That is the question I addressed. You then opined that people shouldn't be able to acquire the arms that the 2nd Amendment is (per the arguments I outlined) intended to protect. I then replied with the reasons for why they should be able to acquire them, and why the 2nd Amendment protects them.

Should be able to acquire is not the same as should acquire, but you seem to be presuming that I'm saying the latter when I'm saying the former. The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the arms that the citizenry would need to retain their liberty, most especially in the face of a well-armed hostile government. Protection of an arm is not the same as demanding its acquisition.

When you say that someone shouldn't be able to acquire an arm, which is what you said, that means they should be prevented from acquiring that arm even if they may need it. If you meant that they shouldn't need to acquire the arms I was speaking of, that is a very different thing. Yes, they shouldn't need to acquire them. But the real world has a nasty habit of throwing us into situations that we shouldn't need to be in.

Would you prefer to have been thrown into battle without any arms? Do you prefer to be nothing but an easy target to the enemy? Because by insisting that the citizenry should not be able to acquire the kinds of arms that would be aimed at them by an oppressive government, that is precisely what you're insisting on as regards the citizenry.


I would hope that the citizenry would never, ever need to use the arms that the 2nd Amendment protects, most especially in the kind of situation that protection is needed for the most. But hope is not what determines reality, and a citizenry that is incapable of successfully throwing off an oppressive government is a citizenry that is enslaved by that government. We've seen numerous examples of such governments, even within the last 50 years alone. You cannot legitimately say that it can't happen here, regardless of how much you don't want it to happen here. Wishes do not dictate reality.


If you had to choose between slavery and war, which would you choose for yourself and/or your children? For the scenario the 2nd Amendment was intended to address, there is no third choice, and we know which choice the founders of the country made in response to that question. The answer to that question will say it all, one way or the other.

 

[JohnnyE]

There is a lot of focus on the prospect of rebellion within the immediate time horizon. That is literally short sighted. The basis for the need for 2A should be looked at in the context of what is actually the unknowable next 250 years for this nation...things literally impossible to foresee.

 

[TheBert]

There is a lot of focus on the prospect of rebellion within the immediate time horizon. That is literally short sighted. The basis for the need for 2A should be looked at in the context of what is actually the unknowable next 250 years for this nation...things literally impossible to foresee.

We are well into the second century of the progressive movement trying to take over the country. Some like to say that the Progressive Era was over quite a long time ago but, all of the ideals and desires are still being pushed.

 

[darrenlobo]

Most people don't have a clue about the 2A. It's about the govt not having standing forces at its disposal. That's why the discussion should be about disarming the government. There is a massive imbalance between the power of the government and the power of the people. Not only the military but the law enforcement establishments here are overwhelmingly strong. We need to start shifting power away from the government by putting these functions back in the people’s hands where they belong. One of the lesser known Founders, Tench Coxe, explained it well:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom… Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

There is only one way to guarantee our lives and liberty. That is to be stronger than those who seek to take them are.

This is why the Founders warned us against having a standing army. They knew that such a force would be used to oppress. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us.

Gun owners today can’t stand up to the law enforcement establishment much less the military. People that advocate civilian guns to counter-balance the government’s weapons are engaging in a dangerous fantasy that is rightly ridiculed. In the US since the government can’t disarm us completely they have armed themselves to the hilt. This has a similar effect as disarming us. One only needs look at the militarization of the law enforcement establishment to see this. There is only one answer and that is institutional change shutting down those agencies while building up the private means of defending ourselves.

 

[Occam]

Most people don't have a clue about the 2A. It's about the govt not having standing forces at its disposal.

Not quite. You're right that the founders were wary about having a standing professional military. But they reluctantly realized it was going to be inevitable, and so provided us with the 2A: Since it turns out we're going to have to have a military, nobody in government can use that as an excuse to deny those NOT in that military from keeping and bearing their own arms.

 

[Bohemian]

The Second Amendment has two key Tenet's:
1. Self preservation using equal or greater force than can be brought against you is a human birthright.

2. We the people have no effective means to remove & replace a tyrannical government without the "Unabridged Second Amendment". Further, We the people are not required to be a member of any standing army or militia the federal or state governments controls.

These key Tenet's are protected, not created by the Second Amendment.

Moreover, every word of Gun Control is Flat Out Unconstitutional and just because Federal & State Governments have grown accustomed to passing Unconstitutional laws does not make them Constitutional.

Additionally, SCOTUS Usurped the power of judicial review. It has yet to be challenged.

Lastly, the Federal Machine Gun Ban signed into law by not so uber conservative Ronald Reagan in 86 has only been challenged in one District Court and was found Unconstitutional. The Federal government never challenged it for fear SCOTUS would overturn the Hughes Amendment which was deemed passed by Acting Speaker of the House Charles Rangle. IT was not, the CSPAN video is there for the world to see.

Thus the Constitutionality of the so-called federal machine gun ban has yet to be heard by SCOTUS.

The Heller & McDonald opinions are ambiguous and assume because no one has taken 86 FOPA Machine Gun ban to SCOTUS it's "Accepted Law"

Every stinking gun ban in U.S. history at state or federal level is based on this fundamentally flawed assertion.

The Second Amendment has no exception clause.

Only when more people with deep pockets realize this will the restoration of the Unabridged Second Amendment occur without force.

Remember our country was founded in opposition to Gun Control.
Battle of Lexington and Concord and the Alamo for starters.

 

[darrenlobo]

Not quite. You're right that the founders were wary about having a standing professional military. But they reluctantly realized it was going to be inevitable, and so provided us with the 2A: Since it turns out we're going to have to have a military, nobody in government can use that as an excuse to deny those NOT in that military from keeping and bearing their own arms.

That's a modern view of the 2A. What do you think of the arguments I presented in The Broken Constitution?

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
Floor debate over the Second Amendment [1789]

Gerry's view would seem to debunk the modern view of the 2A.

 

[Jim12]

Am not trying to be difficult but I have seen a contested election- Al Gore vs George Bush 43. The judicial branch weighed in. Gore's supporters did not begin stockpiling weapons and arguing for the right to buy rocket launchers and hand grenades in preparation for Civil War with other Americans.

When I hear arguments by people who want to begin stockpiling these weapons, I am not amused. The aforementioned weapons desired are for use in the USA. We have a functioning democracy. Prepping for violent overthrow of the government with military weapons to be used against our fellow citizens is too much for me and for about 99% of Americans. I have put Americans in body bags in Vietnam. I don't need to do it here.

People need to visit the Gettysburg cemetery.

You assume that we have and always will have an enlightened, educated, and informed electorate to preserve that functioning democracy. None of these can be taken for granted, and given societal trends we are actually moving away from that. Information and power are increasingly concentrated in a shrinking elite who have an agenda and want control. They manipulate and filter information. Witness, the illegal FBI and DoJ actions that occurred during the 2016 elections that we wouldn't even know about if Hillary had won. They would have been covered up and never revealed.

Yes, many brothers and heroes are buried at Gettysburg. It could have been avoided if Lincoln had simply allowed the South to continue its ways or secede. But we wouldn't be what we've been all these years, up until recently, and now perhaps another great moral challenge lies ahead. There are some truly evil people who have a great deal of power and they don't plan on giving it up easily. And there are others who will follow.

Thank you for your service!

 

[cowboy321]

You're reading far too much into what's being said.

The question was simple and straightforward: what does the 2nd Amendment mean by "arms"? That is the question I addressed. You then opined that people shouldn't be able to acquire the arms that the 2nd Amendment is (per the arguments I outlined) intended to protect. I then replied with the reasons for why they should be able to acquire them, and why the 2nd Amendment protects them.

Should be able to acquire is not the same as should acquire, but you seem to be presuming that I'm saying the latter when I'm saying the former. The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the arms that the citizenry would need to retain their liberty, most especially in the face of a well-armed hostile government. Protection of an arm is not the same as demanding its acquisition.

When you say that someone shouldn't be able to acquire an arm, which is what you said, that means they should be prevented from acquiring that arm even if they may need it. If you meant that they shouldn't need to acquire the arms I was speaking of, that is a very different thing. Yes, they shouldn't need to acquire them. But the real world has a nasty habit of throwing us into situations that we shouldn't need to be in.

Would you prefer to have been thrown into battle without any arms? Do you prefer to be nothing but an easy target to the enemy? Because by insisting that the citizenry should not be able to acquire the kinds of arms that would be aimed at them by an oppressive government, that is precisely what you're insisting on as regards the citizenry.


I would hope that the citizenry would never, ever need to use the arms that the 2nd Amendment protects, most especially in the kind of situation that protection is needed for the most. But hope is not what determines reality, and a citizenry that is incapable of successfully throwing off an oppressive government is a citizenry that is enslaved by that government. We've seen numerous examples of such governments, even within the last 50 years alone. You cannot legitimately say that it can't happen here, regardless of how much you don't want it to happen here. Wishes do not dictate reality.


If you had to choose between slavery and war, which would you choose for yourself and/or your children? For the scenario the 2nd Amendment was intended to address, there is no third choice, and we know which choice the founders of the country made in response to that question. The answer to that question will say it all, one way or the other.

It is a thoughtful discussion and has taken place in wider forums than this. You deserve credit for bringing it up. You should start a national debate on the need for these weapons to be available to our citizens. Write an article.

The idea that the founders wanted weapons such as Stingers, RPGs, C4, Anti Tank weapons and the aircraft needed to deliver ordnance like 500 pound bombs, I guess, to drop on US Troops is beyond my belief. We don't have a time machine , so lets allow Congress and the states to determine if they want to help citizens equip this massive citizen military force whose role it is to overthrow the government, which is well armed itself. The Maryland House of Delegates is a good place to start. These sorts of weapons also end up with crazed psychopaths as in Las Vegas and Florida with massive casualties.

I do not believe that Americans need to acquire individual arsenals of military weapons sitting in their garages ready in the event an oppressive government needs to be overthrown. Explosives are a fire hazard for starters. A teenager shoots down a 757 while drinking beer one afternoon with the Stinger his dad purchased with $125,000 from a second mortgage.

You can't change my mind. In the public arena, the idea will not float.

 

[Jim12]

We are well into the second century of the progressive movement trying to take over the country. Some like to say that the Progressive Era was over quite a long time ago but, all of the ideals and desires are still being pushed.

Ironically, they and we call them "progressive," when in reality they are regressive.

What they advocate ultimately results in something that as a practical matter is indistinguishable from slavery.

 

[ARMERICA]

I need these in my life.

 

[darrenlobo]

This article is insightful on the subject:

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

...there is what seems to me to be a very strong case, nicely put in the The Cato Institute Brief, that the right to bear arms in English law prior to the Bill of Rights was an individual right and that the Founders saw the Second Amendment and similar provisions in state constitutions as continuations and extensions of that tradition.