2nd amendment definition of "arms"

GHETTO BLASTER · Mar 3, 2018

I think the real question should be, why can I buy a retired tank or fighter jet but not an M-4?

Jim12 · Mar 3, 2018

GHETTO BLASTER said:
I think the real question should be, why can I buy a retired tank or fighter jet but not an M-4?

Because you thought about it before the grabbers did.

boothdoc · Mar 3, 2018

Lol. Look upon legal Supreme Court decisions

Mark75H · Mar 3, 2018

I see a complete and rather distinct pattern

i was wondering if we could start a debate on

If the Mods aren't onto this yet, shame on them.

hodgepodge · Mar 3, 2018

When the framers wrote "arms", they meant "arms". That's clear enough for me.

johnkorz · Mar 3, 2018

I guess my question is what is your definition of an assault weapons?

John

BigSteve57 · Mar 3, 2018

A salt weapon: https://bugasalt.com/

Biggfoot44 · Mar 3, 2018

Assault Rifle = Relatively compact , relatively light , fires medium powered rifle ctg , select fire .

Assault Rifle has a real definition . Assault ( whatever else ) is kinda nebulous.

Added - Could mean a snowflake finds the appearence scary. Could mean the Mfg made it flat black , FDE , or camo and raised the price $100 . Could be it is more rugged, or somehow more suited to Mil or LE use. Or some combination of above

Jim12 · Mar 3, 2018

johnkorz said:
I guess my question is what is your definition of an assault weapons?

John

Here's "a salt weapon" that kills 1.6 million people a year, multiples more than those killed by guns of all kinds.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/salt-and-sodium/sodium-health-risks-and-disease/

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-disease-deaths-caused-by-eating-too-much-salt-081414

Alan3413 · Mar 3, 2018

Mark75H said:
I see a complete and rather distinct pattern

If the Mods aren't onto this yet, shame on them.

My money's on Russian trolls.

Rus · Mar 3, 2018

We have an "assault rifle" ban because it garnered votes - by temporarily placating a deeply ignorant
group that insisted their solution is correct.
False evidence, false witness, ignorance, and arrogance are worse tools...

Don H · Mar 3, 2018

sports89man7 said:
hey guys i was wondering if we could start a debate on the legal definition of arms in the 2nd amendment.

Easy enough and pretty basic

What is ARMS?
This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms.
From Black's Law Dictionary

In other words the common arms of the military.

Decoy · Mar 3, 2018

montoya32 · Mar 3, 2018

sports89man7 said:
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.

I admire your interest in educating yourself to assist in the fight to preserve our rights, but "arms" means what it says. Arms. Firearms in common use at the time and today. In 1789 in meant the same type arms that were used against the colonist by the Redcoats. Muskets, pistols, blunderbusses and others.

We must all stop trying to argue our stance and "educate" the gun control crowd. They know well and good what the verbiage in the Bill of Rights means. This is not a polite or pleasant fight and our side is beginning to see that.

Onceuponatime · Mar 4, 2018

This guy probably wants it to mean we have the right to have our sleeves rolled up!

kcbrown · Mar 4, 2018

Don H said:
Easy enough and pretty basic

What is ARMS?
This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms.
From Black's Law Dictionary

In other words the common arms of the military.

I would argue that it's more extensive than that. Look at the context of the 2nd Amendment. The founders had just come out of a shooting war against a tyrannical power, wherein the reason they fought in the first place was because the government had taken their liberties. The founders are on record as distrusting standing armies, but needed a way to defend against standing armies. And the government they would need to defend against wasn't necessarily just that of some foreign power, but also the one they themselves were setting up, in case that government were to become tyrannical itself. Remember that they themselves had seen tyranny rise, so they knew it was possible for it to rise within the government they were setting up, as well.

Which means they were attempting to arrange so that the militia could retain control over its own destiny through force if necessary. And that means the militia would have to be able to achieve a military victory over the armies of both foreign governments and, if necessary, the domestic one. That requires the militia have access to whatever arms are necessary to achieve that.

What arms are those? That should be obvious: all arms that any military force might use against an enemy. All of them. The arms held by the militia obviously must be at least a match for those of any enemy it may find itself fighting against. At a minimum, those are the arms protected by the 2nd Amendment, if you truly wish to use the original intended meaning behind the 2nd Amendment and to hold true to the purpose of its ratification.

How in the world is this not plainly obvious??

Rack&Roll · Mar 4, 2018

Sportsman897,

When I land my F-16 I will post more...

Haides · Mar 4, 2018

Dammit_Man · Mar 4, 2018

If anything I would say we need more focus on the "well regulated" part if the 2nd. And I don't mean restrictions, I mean training. The average shooter is pretty dismal if I do say so myself.

You always hear arguments about what a "militia" is, and how "militia" doesn't apply to the average person. Even though I don't think it should be necessary, but for the sake of argument why can't I join a militia and train? Americans should dominate every shooting sport.

My biggest problem with the NRA is that it doesn't do enough to fulfil it's original purpose, which is to raise the marksmanship of the average shooter.

j_h_smith · Mar 4, 2018

We Shall Overcome.

[YT]QhnPVP23rzo[/YT]

2nd amendment definition of "arms"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Senior Member (Gold)

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Super Genius

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics