2nd amendment definition of "arms"

[Blacksmith101]

Three pages of comments and crickets from the OP I guess he accomplished his mission.

 

[Threeband]

hey guys i was wondering if we could start a debate...

Hey guys...buddies...pals...blokes...mates...


Who wrote that script?

Here's a script for the OP:

First Clown
... Come, my spade. There is no ancient gentleman
but gardeners, ditchers, and grave-makers:
they hold up Adam's profession.

Second Clown
Was he a gentleman?

First Clown
He was the first that ever bore arms.

And what saith U.S. vs. Miller?



Meanwhile, who keeps tossing golden apples into our midst?

 

[GUNSnROTORS]

Troll season snuck up on me this year.

Hoping for a nice fat one this season ... I hear they're very ketogenic.

 

[Jim12]

More on the Belton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

That's pretty cool.

 

[Stoveman]

Freaking '18ers...

 

[omegared24]

Worst thread ever has the best meme ever. Now it was worth it.

 

[eruby]

"......And drank rapidly a glass of water."

 

[Rack&Roll]

Pretty sure he meant "well regulated" in the 18th century sense of well trained, and not in the 20th-21st sense of "government controlled"

In the late 18th century, the phrase “well regulated” had to do with clock precision.

More generally it was used to describe operations that were precise, as in individuals gathering as a militia.

“Well regulated” is not something that libtards wish to understand, so yes they just default to Govt Control.

 

[Occam]

Regardless, the left - and even much of the right, including passionate gun owners - STILL get confused and think the right to keep & bear is protected by the 2A in some sort of dependency relationship with the existence of a militia (regardless of how one translates "well regulated"). That's the trap, that particular fundamental misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with it. The 2A articulates the protection of that right EVEN IF we have a well-regulated, or professional-quality standing military (at any level, including a simple militia). People who get lost in the weeds trying to arrive at a definition of "well regulated" or "militia" in order to make the 2A's protections of individual rights last are completely missing the point of the amendment, and taking the left's bait.

 

[Decoy]

In the late 18th century, the phrase “well regulated” had to do with clock precision.

More generally it was used to describe operations that were precise, as in individuals gathering as a militia.

“Well regulated” is not something that libtards wish to understand, so yes they just default to Govt Control.

I have also read it to be interpreted as "well practiced".

 

[Occam]

I have also read it to be interpreted as "well practiced".

Regardless, it's a distraction. The Second Amendment doesn't make the individual right a function of a/the militia's quality or even of its existence at all. It's saying you have the right DESPITE the existence of such, just so nobody in power gets confused on the matter. Which is what we need to all focus on, when covering this ground with the antis who think they've got something in the 2A they can hang their hat on. They don't, but when we all debate the meaning of "well regulated" as if our rights depended on the definition, we're rewarding the left by pandering to their willful misunderstanding of the amendment.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Agree.

My understanding is that when a time piece is not involved, “well regulated” references an individual’s skill and precision with their own firearm.

 

[kcbrown]

Regardless, it's a distraction. The Second Amendment doesn't make the individual right a function of a/the militia's quality or even of it's existence at all. It's the saying you have the right DESPITE the existence of such, just so nobody in power gets confused on the matter. Which is what we need to all focus on, when covering this ground with the antis who think they've got something in the 2A they can hang their hat on. They don't, but when we all debate the meaning of "well regulated" as if our rights depended on the definition, we're rewarding the left by pandering to their willful misunderstanding of the amendment.

What it does is give a baseline reason for protecting the right, with implications for the minimum amount of protection the right must be afforded. It does not say that the baseline reason is the only reason, or that the right is limited to that which the reason covers.

Put another way, because of the militia clause, we know that arms which are required for the militia to fulfill its duty to maintain the "security of a free state" are protected. All of them. The historical context makes it clear what the militia must be able to do: achieve military victory against a standing army. That context makes it clear what arms at a minimum must be protected: all arms which might be deployed by a military force against an enemy.

The nature of what is protected is timeless in nature. The weapons on the battlefield change over time due to technological progress. The 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure that the militia has whatever it needs to prevail on the battlefield at whatever time it may have to engage an enemy. If the enemy might have tanks, then the 2nd Amendment protects tanks and anything that might be needed to destroy them. If the enemy might have missiles, then the 2nd Amendment protects missiles, and anything that might defend against them. This extends to any and every weapon the enemy might possess, for without (at a minimum) the same arms as those the enemy possesses, the militia might well fail at its duty whereas with those arms it would succeed. The militia cannot fail in this duty, for such failure spells the doom of liberty and of the very purpose for the country's existence.

Obviously, self-defense is another purpose for the 2nd Amendment's protection. It's not explicitly spelled out in the Amendment, likely because the authors thought it to be so obvious that it wasn't necessary. Heller provides ample evidence and argument for why the right encompasses self-defense. But Heller errs in its claim that the right can be arbitrarily disconnected from militia service such that military weaponry (such as machine guns) would not be protected by it. To insist on that is to insist either that the prefatory clause has no purpose (and to thus run squarely into Marbury v Madison), or to insist on "interpreting" the prefatory clause in a manner that differs from the original intended meaning, an act which undermines the entire foundation of law (see this for why that is so).

 

[TheBert]

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

I transferred one of those to my brother-in-law in Virginia last year. He uses it to protect his bee hives.

 

[TheBert]

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.

The NRA started out to improve the citizens marksmanship so that they would be better prepared for war.

 

[Threeband]

The NRA started out to improve the citizens marksmanship so that they would be better prepared for war.

On December 8, 1941 my then 20 year old Aunt bought a Savage Model C 3 , .22 single shot bolt action rifle and joined the NRA to learn to shoot. She joined the Red Cross and served in combat zones in Italy. Ended up making a career of the Red Cross.

That rifle became a hand me down to my brothers and me.

 

[Czechnologist]

 

[Fredcohunter]

I just wish all these jagoffs who would so quickly and willingly do away with the second would realize one thing. If we can argue that the second is outdated and should be repealed the same logic can be applied to other parts of the constitution and the 4th and then the 1st will fall right behind the second.

Its like watching lambs lead themselves to the slaughter.........

 

[j_h_smith]

Why just the 1st? What about the 5th and 14th? Without the 1st and 2nd, I doubt you will need either of those.

 

[Fredcohunter]

Why just the 1st? What about the 5th and 14th? Without the 1st and 2nd, I doubt you will need either of those.

Once you get the 2nd, 4th and 1st the rest are just paper.