Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/6/2005 11:27:23 AM EDT
How do we define the word arms? Obviously it applies to all small arms such as handguns,rifles, knives, etc but should it also include stuff like RPGs, mortars, M203s, etc? I'm not talking about how the current govt. defines these, but how the constitution would define them.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:28:17 AM EDT
All infantry weapons.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:29:07 AM EDT
The citizens should be able to own anything that the government owns.


Except maybe the nukes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:31:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
The citizens should be able to own anything that the government owns.


Except maybe the nukes.



it does not put any limit on the types of arms.
the reason for having the ammendment is so the people can replace the government when they choose to.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:38:16 AM EDT
Nothing says home-defense like a crew-served weapon

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:39:00 AM EDT
I believe that private individuals have the right to own just about any arms that are consistent with the concept of a militia.

If the government were unable to provide security for the country, the government could put out a general call for patriots to form up and defend the state. That would mean that pistols, rifles, grenades, tanks, jets, etc should be protected. Just about any conventional weapon.

In the real world, I would say any man portable weapon that could aid in a citizen army should be protected. However, part of "well regulated" should mean that the government should "suggest" what weapons would be best. You wouldn't want 50 guys showing up with 50 different calibers, rifles, magazines, etc.

IMO, to do justice to the 2nd amendment, the government should make surplus M16s, M9s, mags and ammo available to all law abiding citizens at a significant discount. They should offer free training at military bases. That way if the call ever went out, you would have tens of thousands of trained, organized, and supplied militia available when needed.

IMO, that is what the founding fathers original intent of the 2nd amendment was.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:40:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By midwinter:
Nothing says home-defense like a crew-served weapon





Happiness is a belt-fed weapon!!!!!! We think alike.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:40:15 AM EDT
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:42:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:43:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



Exactly.

If you have the $4.3mil, you should be able to purchase an M1 Abrams.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:44:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



I'm completely comfortable with this.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:52:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?




Sure, you have heard of nuclear arms, right?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:53:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
The citizens should be able to own anything that the government owns.


Except maybe the nukes.



+1

I'd add any WMD...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:56:06 AM EDT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms as equal balance to the government, shall not be infringed.

damn I wish it read like that.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:56:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?



My American Dictionary of the English Language 1828 states:

ARM. To furnish or equip with weapons offence or defense; as to arm the militia.
to provide with arms, weapons or means of attack or resistance; to take arms; as a means for war.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:00:03 PM EDT
Anything that fires a bullet, ie serviceable by an individual. So no crew served weapons or higher.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:00:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Q3131A:

<snip>

IMO, to do justice to the 2nd amendment, the government should make surplus M16s, M1911s, mags and ammo available to all law abiding citizens at a significant discount. They should offer free training at military bases.

<snip>



Fixed
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:23:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?



Let's look back in history.
Traditionally, cannon were not owned by the private citizens who made up the milita but by the town.
So, your town would own a tank or two I guess.
However, my feeling is that none of that stuff would serve a civilian well.

Small arms - RPGs, Heavy MGs, Mortars, Small artillery pieces like the old 37mm AT guns, Flamethrowers, recoil-less rifles, and grenades all work.

Jets, tanks and nukes?
No - I am the most pro-RKBA guy you will find, but nukes do not belong in easy to reach places, and tanks and jets lack practicality.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:26:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?



However, my feeling is that none of that stuff would serve a civilian well.



I disagree. An M1 Abrahm sure would make 5 o'clock traffic much more fun!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 12:33:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 12:35:04 PM EDT by PAEBR332]
At the time the Second awas written, "Arms" meant any weapon that could be carried and used by a single individual. The addition of the term "bear" also implies that one must be able to carry the weapon.

If we believe the Constitution should be read as the Framers wrote it, then we would have to conclude that arms would include things like RPGs and M203s, but not artillery, aircraft, or any crew served weapons.

Just the thoughts of a Constitutional Originalist Absolutist.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:33:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
At the time the Second awas written, "Arms" meant any weapon that could be carried and used by a single individual. The addition of the term "bear" also implies that one must be able to carry the weapon.

If we believe the Constitution should be read as the Framers wrote it, then we would have to conclude that arms would include things like RPGs and M203s, but not artillery, aircraft, or any crew served weapons.

Just the thoughts of a Constitutional Originalist Absolutist.



I would agree with that.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:41:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 3:43:03 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Technically? All arms.


Couldn't our Fore Fathers buy ships, cannon, etc....? State of the Art weaponry?



Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

No - I am the most pro-RKBA guy you will find, but nukes do not belong in easy to reach places, and tanks and jets lack practicality.




So now an arm has to be "practical"? Camel's nose under the tent.


How about no "indescriminant" weapons = ie: no nukes, unguided bombs, etc...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:56:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By QuantumPion:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
According to the Second Amendment, there are NO restrictions on what arms you can own.

So far as I'm concerned, if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.



yeah but the question is, is a cannon, or a tank, or a jet, or a nuke, an arm?



Let's look back in history.
Traditionally, cannon were not owned by the private citizens who made up the milita but by the town.
So, your town would own a tank or two I guess.
However, my feeling is that none of that stuff would serve a civilian well.

Small arms - RPGs, Heavy MGs, Mortars, Small artillery pieces like the old 37mm AT guns, Flamethrowers, recoil-less rifles, and grenades all work.

Jets, tanks and nukes?
No - I am the most pro-RKBA guy you will find, but nukes do not belong in easy to reach places, and tanks and jets lack practicality.




That's not actually true. Private citizens could and did own cannon. Before the Revolution, mostly "rich" people in the position of authority (English "lords"...aka. dictators for the crown) purchased them and authorized their use, where ever they were needed.

There were some cannon in private hands, but they were most likely stolen from "militia" armys. When the Revolution broke out, the cannons from Fort Tyconderoga were taken and brought back to Boston to start our Independence. After the Revolution, cannon were in the hands of private citizens.

As for the question, the same weaponry that the military has. But I would draw the line at WMDs. You might not have the "practical" use for owning a tank, but if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it and use it. HOWEVER, in our country, that also comes with responsibility. So if you own a tank and can use the gun on it. You'd be under some restrictions to where you could shoot it. Because you can impose on Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness of others. So if you have private property that will let you shoot it there, have at it. Or if you could rent range time at a Military range, you should be able to have at it.

WE are suppose to be free, but that's not the way it is...is it?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 4:13:13 PM EDT
Somewhere, I have text that states the founders believed the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of citizens to arms in current use of the military for the current time. I.e. M-16s today, etc.

I haven't been able to find this info on the web, though...

Weapons of mass destruction seem outside the scope of what the founders were intending to guarantee with the 2nd. It could be argued that a nuke is not exactly an arm, but an explosive device - either way, probably not great if your neighbor has one in his garage

I did come across this and I found it interesting -


Original text of the Second Amendment
James Madison originally proposed the text of the Second Amendment on June 8, 1789, to read the following:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

On August 24, 1789, the House completed its work on the proposed amendments and forwarded them to the Senate. Leaving the House, the amendment read as follows:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The next day, the Senate received the amendment from the house and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the amendment was transcribed, several changes to punctuation and capitalization were made:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate, after some debate, modified the amendment and on September 9th sent it back to the House in this form:

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The house voted on September 21st to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

"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."

It is this version that was transmitted to the states for ratification.



from http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ii-to-the-u-s-constitution



Link Posted: 10/6/2005 4:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
Anything that fires a bullet, ie serviceable by an individual. So no crew served weapons or higher.



What are you, a democrat?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:13:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Let's look back in history.
Traditionally, cannon were not owned by the private citizens who made up the milita but by the town.
So, your town would own a tank or two I guess.
However, my feeling is that none of that stuff would serve a civilian well.

Small arms - RPGs, Heavy MGs, Mortars, Small artillery pieces like the old 37mm AT guns, Flamethrowers, recoil-less rifles, and grenades all work.

Jets, tanks and nukes?
No - I am the most pro-RKBA guy you will find, but nukes do not belong in easy to reach places, and tanks and jets lack practicality.



Actually plenty of private citizens owned cannon. Henry Knox (Washington's Artillery chief) used to cast cannon in the backyard of his home in Manhattan prior to the Revolution and conduct experiments in ballistics (i.e. shoot them) off the "Battery" on Manhattan.

Many New England whalers and Yankee clippers carried a deck gun or two right up through the 1890s.

The private volunteer company in Fayetteville NC owned several bronze field pieces prior to the War Between the States. They belonged to the corporation (club) not the state or city.

The Ancient and Honorable COmpany of Artillery in Boston was likewise a private volunteer company.

Bannerman's sold cannon (and Gatling guns on field carriages) and shells.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:08:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
The citizens should be able to own anything that the government owns.


Except maybe the nukes.




+1

Other than WMDs, as long as you're legal & can afford them, have your own AA crew for all I care.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:18:50 PM EDT
As it pertains to the 2A.
Arms- any weapon one man can carry onto the field of battle. I don't believe this includes ordnance such as anti tank muntions an the like. You can get those once you overthrow the first ASP.
Top Top