2nd amendment definition of "arms"

[ToolAA]

Army starts doing massacres in America, we would be seeing people defending themselves. You will not see this. You live in America, not China. We do have periodic massacres in Las Vegas and Florida which do not endear the public to AR15s. These are not done by US troops.

Playing devils advocate for sake of continuing a great discussion. I think my view here is not democrats or Obama or the deep state we have today somehow plotting to suppress or even enslave Americans.

What is more likely a scenario is one where a severely stressed or broken government be it natural disaster, or economic disaster begins to operate like a third world country. Don’t think it could happen, we’ll think about the fallout from a massive economic collapse. When you really analyze the world economy it is just one big house of cards. The only reason that we are allowed to owe the world $27 Trillion dollars is because the believe we are a good investment. That status may not last forever. Imagine the next great depression but one where China refuses to loan money. Inflation jumps to 15-20%. Unemployment jumps to 20-30%. Welfare programs fall apart so the generational poor are now fighting the newly impoverished middle class for table scraps. Under those circumstances government corruption will run wild unlike anything we have ever seen. The soldiers thankful for the small paychecks they do receive would be asked to suppress civil unrest. The fears and prejudices we have now would be easily amplified. Local politicians could easily convince a desperate public that the “other Americans” are the reason for their suffering.

Military units might actually be convinced that they are fighting to save our country from total destruction by killing “other” Americans.

I guess if you are not one of the “other” Americans then you might not need an AR15, bump stock, Rocket Launcher, IED, what have you.

I don’t wake up every day believing our country could descend into this type of chaos but we really are only as good as the value of our economy. An impoverished country is not a free country.

 

[ToolAA]

I will fight the British if they try to take back the colonies!

What if they just try to take Connecticut, Mass, NJ and the greater NYC area?

 

[kcbrown]

First of all, if the US Army starts doing massacres in America, we would be seeing people defending themselves. You will not see this.

I hope to God you're right. But my point is that you can't say for sure that we won't see this. You simply don't know.

It might not even be the U.S. Army that does that. It might be DHS. Or FBI. Or any number of other agencies. It might even be an agency that hasn't been created yet. You just can't know.

You live in America, not China.

Germany was a republic, until it wasn't. Venezeula was a republic, until it wasn't. Rome was a republic, until it wasn't. This pattern repeats itself over, and over, and over again, throughout the world and throughout history.

What in the world makes you believe that America is so special that it is completely immune to the forces that seem to be in play everywhere and everywhen else?

You might be right. I hope you're right. But if you're wrong and the citizenry is unprepared, then that's the end.

I have a dozen pieces of shrapnel in my body and was decorated for valor under enemy fire, so don't challenge my willingness or substantial ability to defend my family with firearms and other weapons.

If you're willing to defend your family against a government that means to do them harm, then good! I was hoping you'd say that.

Why, then, do you advise others to not do the same should they face that very scenario? That is using deadly force against a government entity.


Do you believe the Jews in Germany should have gone quietly to their deaths? The Nazis didn't kill them immediately. That happened later. The Jews didn't know in advance that they were going to their deaths. They did know that they were being unjustifiably arrested and carted away en masse. Do you think they should have gone quietly? Or do you think they should have fought back, knowing that in doing so, they would be firing the first shot, initiating force against a government entity?

Also don't keep droning on about the US government possibly beginning a killing spree for which we need to be prepared with military weapons to include anti aircraft.

It's not necessarily a killing spree which would require that kind of preparation. It's anything that the citizenry believes is solid proof that the government has gone too far and needs to be replaced. For the founders, it was a plethora of infringements upon liberty. As it was with them, I expect that if that line is crossed, it will be because of a large number of grievances that the citizenry has against the government that the government refuses to address.

The people of China, Russia and North Korea had/have no laws protecting them from government abuse.

This has to be the most laughable thing I've read. You think laws which are made by the government and which are enforced by the government are going to protect people from the government?!?

We live in America for which you paint a grim picture of a government one day willing to take our lives. Huh? So we need to accumulate massive firepower which is quite expensive to acquire and maintain. I simply give no credibility to this assertion. None.

Ignore history at your peril, and at the peril of those you love. Nobody believes it can happen to them -- until it does. That's the point, the entire reason, behind learning from history.

This is all from a Mad Max Movie. The idea of killing Americans, as I have tried to state, is way off the Grid. I am concerned about Russia and ISIS, not the US Army. The aforementioned ISIS and Russia are dangerous.

I agree. What I speak of here is way down the list of things that demand immediate attention. Nevertheless, this discussion was never about that. This discussion was, and is, about the arms that the 2nd Amendment protects, and why it protects them. It is a contradiction to simultaneously insist that people should not be allowed to acquire the arms they would need to replace a tyrannical government and to claim that you support the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for. One of those has to go. Which one will it be?

 

[Threeband]

The people of China, North Korea, Britain, etc. do have the same god-given right to keep and bear arms that we have.

 

[Biggfoot44]

It's already happen , just over 85years ago . Active Duty Army unit , massacered patriotic American Veterans, and their families . They didn't believe it was possible either until the bullets started flying. ( 500 infantry, 500 cavalry, 6 M1917 Tanks , Commanded by Gen Douglas MacArthur, at order of Pres Hoover )

 

[tomrkba]

All melee weapons, all hand held guns (firearms, lasers and guns that do not exist), artillery/cannon, explosives, body armor and vehicles.

NBC are not covered.

 

[Threeband]

Remember Bloody Ludlow.

Blair Mountain.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Well remember Ludlow. Blair Mtn was more of an even fight , with a lot more different sides taking part .

 

[Threeband]

Bleeding Kansas then.
Beecher's Bibles (Sharps carbines) were the advanced military grade assault rifles of the day.

 

[pappychksix]

Ok, so you don’t like SB 281, now do something about. Laws can be changed.

Get out your sign and start marching.

Maryland State House
100 State Cir, Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 946-5400
https://goo.gl/maps/5t1B3KA3Fqt

This is what happens when the government gets you to believe that we live in a democracy. The truth is this is a REPUBLIC. The difference is that in a democracy, the majority rules, which means that your rights can be voted away. In a REPUBLIC, your rights are yours and they CANNOT be voted away nor can they be legislated away. Learn who you are and you will find that the truth will win in the end!

 

[Allen65]

This is what happens when the government gets you to believe that we live in a democracy. The truth is this is a REPUBLIC. The difference is that in a democracy, the majority rules, which means that your rights can be voted away. In a REPUBLIC, your rights are yours and they CANNOT be voted away nor can they be legislated away. Learn who you are and you will find that the truth will win in the end!

So, based on what we're seeing in MGA, MD is definitivly a democracy.

 

[rascal]

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.

This is like saying: what is the definition of "Press" in the first amendment. There is none.

250 years of legal precidents show the courts typically look at the meaning at the time of "bear arms."

"Well regulated," for example, was never once used at the time to mean government regulations.

Keep means privately own and possess, and "Bearing arms" was routinely used at the time to mean publicly carrying arms of the grade of standard light infantryman.

 

[darrenlobo]

This is like saying: what is the definition of "Press" in the first amendment. There is none.

250 years of legal precidents show the courts typically look at the meaning at the time of "bear arms."

"Well regulated," for example, was never once used at the time to mean government regulations.

Keep means privately own and possess, and "Bearing arms" was routinely used at the time to mean publicly carrying arms of the grade of standard light infantryman.

The fact that having a militia is part of the 2A tells us clearly that its intent is to protect our right to military weapons.

 

[teratos]

The fact that having a militia is part of the 2A tells us clearly that its intent is to protect our right to military weapons.

So does the Miller decision from 1939.

 

[Onceuponatime]

Playing devils advocate for sake of continuing a great discussion. I think my view here is not democrats or Obama or the deep state we have today somehow plotting to suppress or even enslave Americans.

What is more likely a scenario is one where a severely stressed or broken government be it natural disaster, or economic disaster begins to operate like a third world country. Don’t think it could happen, we’ll think about the fallout from a massive economic collapse. When you really analyze the world economy it is just one big house of cards. The only reason that we are allowed to owe the world $27 Trillion dollars is because the believe we are a good investment. That status may not last forever. Imagine the next great depression but one where China refuses to loan money. Inflation jumps to 15-20%. Unemployment jumps to 20-30%. Welfare programs fall apart so the generational poor are now fighting the newly impoverished middle class for table scraps. Under those circumstances government corruption will run wild unlike anything we have ever seen. The soldiers thankful for the small paychecks they do receive would be asked to suppress civil unrest. The fears and prejudices we have now would be easily amplified. Local politicians could easily convince a desperate public that the “other Americans” are the reason for their suffering.

Military units might actually be convinced that they are fighting to save our country from total destruction by killing “other” Americans.

I guess if you are not one of the “other” Americans then you might not need an AR15, bump stock, Rocket Launcher, IED, what have you.

I don’t wake up every day believing our country could descend into this type of chaos but we really are only as good as the value of our economy. An impoverished country is not a free country.

Nice post. I don't agree about the dismissal of the entities of evil existing that mentioned in the first part.
But your bleak scenario can very well happen that would and is led by the operation of the federal reserve system and fractional reserve banking.

And oh btw, the people in charge of paragraph 2 are the masters to the puppets in paragraph 1!

 

[Onceuponatime]

This is what happens when the government gets you to believe that we live in a democracy. The truth is this is a REPUBLIC. The difference is that in a democracy, the majority rules, which means that your rights can be voted away. In a REPUBLIC, your rights are yours and they CANNOT be voted away nor can they be legislated away. Learn who you are and you will find that the truth will win in the end!

You are technically right but unfortunately, we don't operate like the republic we are supposed to be. We operate as a democracy.

 

[Onceuponatime]

The fact that having a militia is part of the 2A tells us clearly that its intent is to protect our right to military weapons.

For everyone!

 

[Mark75H]

This is like saying: what is the definition of "Press" in the first amendment. There is none.

250 years of legal precidents show the courts typically look at the meaning at the time of "bear arms."

"Well regulated," for example, was never once used at the time to mean government regulations.

Keep means privately own and possess, and "Bearing arms" was routinely used at the time to mean publicly carrying arms of the grade of standard light infantryman.

You are adding a condition/restriction not present in the text of the Amendment.

 

[rascal]

The fact that having a militia is part of the 2A tells us clearly that its intent is to protect our right to military weapons.

Yes, that is what I said. There is no defintion in the amendment just like there is not definition of press. All the history and context does clearly indicate what is meant

 

[rascal]

You are adding a condition/restriction not present in the text of the Amendment.

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..