2nd amendment definition of "arms"

Never ask

Never try to pin down a definition of "arms" or "assault weapon". Just let it be all or none. The anti-gun folks and others found that out when firearms manufacturers took their definition of "assault weapon" and built the same firearms with minor mods to get around it. Point: never give them a definition, it's just a target it shoot at.

JohnnyE said:

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.

Click to expand...

Really? Short sighted? I hope I don’t see it in my lifetime, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

cowboy321 said:

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.

Click to expand...

At the point we're at now, this is likely to be something that would have to be introduced gradually.

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.

Click to expand...

I realize you have difficulty coming to terms with the notion. Nevertheless, you have to start with the question: do the people have the right to be free? Much like the question of whether or not the people have the right to their own lives, it's a question that has only a "yes" or "no" answer.

If your answer is "yes", then everything else I said automatically follows from it. It is uncomfortable. It is distressing. But it is inexorable and inevitable.

We don't have a time machine

Click to expand...

In a way, we do. We have the writings of the founders, as well as a record of what they did and what they used to do it. These things are the basis of what the 2nd Amendment has to mean.

, 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.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a problem.

But back when the founders fought the revolutionary war, individuals owned many (if not most!) of the various military arms that they ultimately used against the British. These were the most destructive and dangerous weapons of their day. And they didn't have modern medicine at their disposal. That makes the weapons they had that much more fearsome in the context they were used.

And yet, they didn't insist that individuals shouldn't be able to own such arms.

If it is the opinions of the founders that one is interested in, one need only look at things such as the above to understand what they believed. But even if you dispense with all of that, you're still left with the question: do the people have the right to be free, or not?

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.

Click to expand...

I agree that they don't need to do that now. But is it your assertion that they will never need such arms? That's what it means to forbid the acquisition of such arms.

Let me put it another way: the point at time you need to acquire such arms is exactly the point in time that you will no longer be able to. That's a fact. The only way you get around it is by acquiring them before things get to that point.

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.

Click to expand...

I agree that the idea will not float in the public arena as things stand now. Nevertheless, what the 2nd Amendment was originally meant to protect is precisely what I stated. In the end, it still, and always will, come down to that one question: does the citizenry have the right to be free? The answer of "yes" may lead to uncomfortable places and uncomfortable conclusions, but it leads there all the same whether we like it or not.

If things go where the socialist "progressives" want them to go, such that the government has effectively enslaved us, and we are not equipped with the arms you so fear, then the answer to that question will be "no" and will forever thereafter remain "no". With technology being what it is today, we will not get a second chance. Once we lose our liberty, it will be gone for good, and there will be no place on this earth where people could go to regain their freedom. At that point, they will not be able to run and they will not be able to hide. Their only options will be to either fight, or to surrender. The mistake of not being properly prepared to throw off an oppressive government, both in terms of equipment and in terms of training, is a mistake that a free people get to make only once.


So choose. Either you choose liberty, in which case the people will need the means to keep it, or you choose tyranny. You have to choose because tyranny is coming whether we like it or not. The institutions you claim will prevent it have never prevented it before. There is no reason at all to believe that "this time will be different".

KCbrown












Super Genius indeed.

History lesson.

Nnztg8r said:

KCbrown












Super Genius indeed.

Click to expand...

Agree! Quite possibly one of the highest quality posts to ever grace the pages of MDS. I'm in awe.

Yet, herein lies the issue at hand: the concept of tyranny is subject to too many interpretations, IMO. What one may think is tyrannical and intolerable may well be within the range of acceptability for others so, is there a universal definition for what constitutes as tyranny that everyone will accept? Where do we set the bar? That's what I, as a veteran, have a difficult time trying to reconcile. I can totally understand and respect the moral crisis it creates for people who once raised their right hands and swore an oath to defend the United States with their lives if necessary.

Zzzzz_man said:

Agree! Quite possibly one of the highest quality posts to ever grace the pages of MDS. I'm in awe.

Click to expand...

Thanks. *blush*

Yet, herein lies the issue at hand: the concept of tyranny is subject to too many interpretations, IMO. What one may think is tyrannical and intolerable may well be within the range of acceptability for others so, is there a universal definition for what constitutes as tyranny that everyone will accept? Where do we set the bar? That's what I, as a veteran, have a difficult time trying to reconcile. I can totally understand and respect the moral crisis it creates for people who once raised their right hands and swore an oath to defend the United States with their lives if necessary.

Click to expand...

But with respect to the 2nd Amendment, the answer to that question doesn't matter in the slightest. The threshold of what is considered "tyranny" may depend on the individual, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with that. It has only to do with the protection of the arms the citizenry will obviously have to have in order to prevail over a government that the citizenry at that time deems to have crossed the line.

Put another way: the arms that the citizenry will need to prevail over a tyrannical government is wholly independent of their view of where the line between liberty and tyranny lies. They'll need those weapons all the same. Indeed, the greater the citizenry's tolerance of tyranny, the greater their need of ever greater firepower at the point they decide the line has been crossed, because the more tyrannical a government, the more willing it will be to unleash the full might of its weaponry against the citizenry.

What arms does one need to fight this kind of tyranny?

https://youtu.be/rQouKi7xDpM

teratos said:

Really? Short sighted? I hope I don’t see it in my lifetime, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

Click to expand...

I pray not to see it ever, but only looking at and preparing for the near-term, during which I don't see rebellion, is not prudent. Taking a long-term outlook involves looking, if that's possible, very far into the future. It's because the long-term outlook is uncertain means options should not be foreclosed.

We're extremely blessed that the election turned out the way it did or we'd be in full-out chaos right now, and that could change in one wrong move.

Personally, I think our level-headedness and non-violent approach gives the libs a false sense of security. I don’t think we will see a lot of warning except in retrospect. There will be a single event, or just a couple of events that will tip the scales and the response from citizens (including LEO and military) will be swift and violence. I hope I don’t underestimate the cajones attached to my fellow patriots.

kcbrown said:

But with respect to the 2nd Amendment, the answer to that question doesn't matter in the slightest. The threshold of what is considered "tyranny" may depend on the individual, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with that. It has only to do with the protection of the arms the citizenry will obviously have to have in order to prevail over a government that the citizenry at that time deems to have crossed the line.

Put another way: the arms that the citizenry will need to prevail over a tyrannical government is wholly independent of their view of where the line between liberty and tyranny lies. They'll need those weapons all the same. Indeed, the greater the citizenry's tolerance of tyranny, the greater their need of ever greater firepower at the point they decide the line has been crossed, because the more tyrannical a government, the more willing it will be to unleash the full might of its weaponry against the citizenry.

Click to expand...

I once had a question about where the US Constitution stood on what the president could or could not do with regard to military action prior to or without formal declaration of war by congress. These days we have the War Powers Act, but that is recent history. I knew the writers had some restriction in mind, but couldn't for the longest time figure out what it was. It had to be there somewhere. Eventually I figured it out. The president is limited to what he thinks congress will let him get away with without being impeached. They did not feel the need to write out the words directly, but they built the machinery as such.


Conversely, but directly, the constitution was written with the Second Amendment to limit what arms the government had to LESS THAN WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD. The only way to do this was to specifically allow the people to own and BEAR arms, all arms. I have no doubt in my mind it was their intent to have the government in FEAR of the people and not the other way around. They did not feel the need to write out the words directly, but they built the machinery as such.

teratos said:

Personally, I think our level-headedness and non-violent approach gives the libs a false sense of security. I don’t think we will see a lot of warning except in retrospect. There will be a single event, or just a couple of events that will tip the scales and the response from citizens (including LEO and military) will be swift and violence. I hope I don’t underestimate the cajones attached to my fellow patriots.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. It was a single shot that was heard around the world that was the tipping point in 1775. I wonder if you went around and asked the people in the streets if they thought there would be a revolution a week before the British marched out of Boston on their way to Lexington and Concorde what they would have said?

Blacksmith101 said:

I think you are right. It was a single shot that was heard around the world that was the tipping point in 1775. I wonder if you went around and asked the people in the streets if they thought there would be a revolution a week before the British marched out of Boston on their way to Lexington and Concorde what they would have said?

Click to expand...

Exactly. History repeats itself. There will be a shot heard round the world. Word will spread instantaneously. People who value freedom will rise up.

cowboy321 said:

If semi and fully auto firearms were envisioned in the 1700's would the founders have allowed individual purchase? The Flintlock was commonly owned and brought when a militia had to muster to fight Brits and Indians. It was a tad slow to reload. Should Americans be able to buy rifle grenades, Stinger Anti Aircraft rockets, M60's, RPGs and Claymore mines? These are not crew served weapons. Don't hold your breath waiting for a Stinger.

Click to expand...

Don't know about the stingers, but I'm pretty sure you can get the rest of those items, with the proper stamps and deep enough pockets.

cowboy321 said:

If semi and fully auto firearms were envisioned in the 1700's would the founders have allowed individual purchase? The Flintlock was commonly owned and brought when a militia had to muster to fight Brits and Indians. It was a tad slow to reload. Should Americans be able to buy rifle grenades, Stinger Anti Aircraft rockets, M60's, RPGs and Claymore mines? These are not crew served weapons. Don't hold your breath waiting for a Stinger.

Click to expand...

I don't know how I missed this. Semi and fully auto technology DID EXIST in the 1700's. The first known repeater was built in the 1500's. It was ungainly and probably unsafe with multiple loads stacked one behind the other, but its dead wrong to REPEAT the old saw that they had not envisioned anything more than what the British army regulars carried. The redcoats carried muskets because the king was cheap and didn't outfit his regular army with the latest and greatest. Many of the casualties inflicted on the retreat from Lexington were due to the Patriots shooting safely from greater distance with superior long guns with RIFLED barrels that the inexpensive muskets did not feature.

No where in the Second Amendment does it say the public is restricted to less lethal weapontry than government forces have access to.

I’ll leave this here....

cowboy321 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You do not understand our system of government. Watch this.

Sthomas229 said:

You do not understand our system of government. Watch this.

Click to expand...

Good link.

teratos said:

Good link.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

When I think of the word democracy in the context that most Americans believe it to be, the first thing that comes to mind is...