2nd amendment definition of "arms"

rascal said:

No I am not. I did not say "it says" it dos not say anything. It is talking about the class of people, not their weapons. The entire context of the second amendment and the history around it makes it clear they are talking about militia (traditionally all non felon able bodied men, now including women) having the ability to form up with their own arms to oppose, or more importantly to deter from happening in the first place, tyrannical actions or tendencies or foreign forces. Not pitchforks against muskets, not muskets against bolt action cartridge firing rifles, and not bolt action rifles against m4s.

That s my point. There is no definition of arms because the arms being specified CHANGE over time to whatever arms of regular infantry.

That is my point and my problem with the OP construction of the question as to what arms the authors meant. They don't mean a type of weapon, they mean a weapon usage (infantry not irregulars). "Arms" in the Amendment are defined by the context of the Amendment, they do not mean a rate of fire, accuracy, or action type -- they mean what contemporary infantry carries..

Click to expand...

Mark75H said:

Militiamen often carried rifles vs the muskets carried by the regular infantry.

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

The COTUS authorizes the government to grant Letter of marque, meaning the founders envisioned that private citizens would have fully equipped warships to send on punitive missions. Ponder what this means regarding the type of arms under civilian ownership and control.

Click to expand...

rascal said:

Letters of marque were never asserted as a right, but as a license ie only those specifically given that permission.

And that did not have to do with arms, but who one was allowed to attack and under what circumstances.

The analogue would not be what they could do if armed, but whether private vessels could be armed at all. Generally they could for centuries, until 20th century treaties and questions of who was a combatant in conflict affected that.T

Click to expand...

rascal said:

I am not talking about rifles muzzle loading vs muskets but rifled cartridge long guns vs musket.

And I've read the Federalist Papers as well in undergrad and grad, and know Heller back and forth.

Click to expand...

rascal said:

Letters of marque were never asserted as a right, but as a license ie only those specifically given that permission.

And that did not have to do with arms, but who one was allowed to attack and under what circumstances.

The analogue would not be what they could do if armed, but whether private vessels could be armed at all. Generally they could for centuries, until 20th century treaties and questions of who was a combatant in conflict affected that.T

Click to expand...