The 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons.

TurtleDude · Mar 18, 2019

Wayne Jr said:
it's not a violation if it takes the form of Eddy Eagle as a mandatory part of the high school curriculum Just basic safe handling and awareness is all I'm worried about

I wouldn't have an issue with that as part of a school curriculum.

Babykat · Mar 18, 2019

Still the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection.
A well regulated Militia, (militia not standing army. A militia being controlled by the state and not federal government) being necessary to the security of a free State (once again free state not nation. When The United States was founded it more resembled the UN. It was a bunch separate states agreeing to work together. So like the UN the states where worried about maintaining their own sovereign authority) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Keep in mind that the militia while being controlled by the state. It was still made up of civilians and not soldiers. So if the people couldn’t get access to military grade weapons they couldn’t form a well armed or regulated militia in defense of the free state. Now keep in mind this doesn’t mean that the state can’t impose arms bands. But instead that the federal government can’t impose gun bans. But like I have stated before the bill of rights isn’t about imposing laws on the people or states. But it’s about limiting the power of the federal government. While this right is based in the protection of the sovereign authority of the state. It still gives rights to the individual to keep and bare arms.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

American · Mar 18, 2019

Rich2018 said:
Would weaponized smallpox virus count as "arms" ?

Why don't you look up the definition of arms?

arms
/ärmz/
noun
plural noun: arms

1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"arms exports"
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"

MeThePeople · Mar 18, 2019

The constitution was designed to be a mostly 'timeless' adoption of rules for people to govern THEMSELVES by, and the prevention of a return to a former tyranical aristocracy, oligarchy or monarchy. In order to prevent that, WE THE PEOPLE have an obligation to defend the state of freedom that is in place. That defense may come down to the PEOPLE defending themselves from a governmental entity that has shown a willingness to attack the people and to disparage the protections of the Constitution.
I would encourage all to read the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, not just the 'Rights' themselves, to see WHY they were added.
The right to keep and bear arms is preserved to maintain a free state through the establishment of well-regulated militias(Art.1 sec.8). These militia consist of citizens who are willing to keep arms and bear them if Congress calls them forth to 'execute the Laws of the Union,suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions'.(Art.1 sec.8).
The POWER lies with the PEOPLE to agree or disagree with the reason they may be called forth.
If your STATEs Congress calls you foward to supress a religious group that is suspected of harboring a militant operative or concealing militant activities BUT it has not been proven, what do you do?
Hopefully a 'Mob rules' mentality doesn't break out. But as for me, I dont bear my arm for this cause. As a rational member of the citizenry, I need facts first.
Lets say your a citizen, according to the laws of the Constitution, of a border state and your states congress calls you to 'repel the Invasion' of peoples
from a neighboring country whose intentions are not known, their total number is not known, or whether they possess arms (weapons). what do you do?
I think this is pretty simple. You defend your border. And in doing so, you join with your fellow citizens as a militia. A militia that has been organized, armed and disciplined at the direction of the officers appointed by the State and trained under the authority of the Congress.
WE DONT NEED gun control laws. We already have the best 'gun law'.
WE DONT NEED new immigration law. We already have the best there is
JUST READ THE CONSTITUTION

MeThePeople · Mar 18, 2019

Also... arms can mean alot to different people. To cave people that was rocks, branches and branches on fire.
I would hope as an intelligent group of people, in order to form a more perfect union, that we can accept 'modern' arms to be included in the intent of the Amendment.
As a member of a militia you would have access to arms available to the land and naval forces; be trained in the handling and discharge of those arms; know and be aware of who else is trained in the discharge of those weapons.
I love the Constitution

ecofarm · Mar 19, 2019

NWRatCon said:
Oh, let me clarify. When I say "granting", I mean it in the sense of the source of the authorization. Enumeration is just that - a list thereof, neither granting nor limiting. When I say that it is a limitation on power, I mean merely that it sets up the tension between individual activity and the polity.

The Constitution is not a source of authorization. Legislation is the source of authorization and we're the source of legislation. The Constitution is about what the government cannot do, not what the government can do. It's a limitation of power, not the creation of it. And one can't change that for one little piece to make a right "only when you're in the government".

I do not intend to be reductionist about it, or overstate it - I just tend to wax philosophic (force of habit). The fundamental difference is a presumption. In the days of monarchies, the "rights" were those provided by the sovereign to his/her "subjects". They could thus be modified, restricted or eliminated at will. Enlightenment philosophers tended to think of the "bundle of rights" that individuals inherently possessed. Thus, they could only be "restricted", not eliminated (except in certain circumstances - like execution or incarceration). Governments, rather than existing naturally, were "instituted among men" for the benefit of their "polity" - nation, state, municipality, whatever. That's the premise of our Constitution.

One qualm. One's right to life is not eliminated (no natural right can be eliminated). A right is not an obligation or a guarantee. It's a choice. They made that choice and suffer the consequences of the contract into which they voluntarily entered. They chose death. I oppose capital punishment or even the justice system framed as a punishment system, but that's their argument.

No eliminating natural rights. Ever. I won't discuss against internal logic or congruity.

The Constitution, then, is actually a grant of authority to the government(s) -

No.

which is why there is an extensive list of powers delegated to the organs of the government.

No.

The Bill of Rights are enumerated restrictions on those grants of authority.

It enumerates rights.

But.... "WE the People" HAVE given authority to the governments we've instituted to act on our behalf in certain circumstances. Here's why that matters:

First, we have more "rights" than are listed in the Constitution - privacy, family, travel, raising of a family, personal sovereignty - that have been subsequently recognized by (not created" by) the courts or legislative action. The "right to keep and bear arms" is, in my view, one of those rights, the presumption being that we have it unless it's been restricted.

Seems fine.

Second, any government action has to come from some expressly stated grant of authority. In the absence of such a grant, the government can't do it.

Legislation.

Third, the presumption of government action is that it is premised on the interests of the collective "people" who granted that authority, so there has to be a rational relationship between the action and the interest asserted. There is then a balance between the individual interest and the collective interest.

Fair enough, with consideration for rights enumerated. Not with consideration to the enumeration of restriction or authority which, in this context, would obviously make no sense and would - in fact - be an arbitrary infringement upon rights.

All of that informs my approach to "gun rights".

Some is wrong.

I start with the presumption that everyone possesses the "right" to keep and bear arms, and then look to the authority of governments (States and municipalities included) to limit or restrict those rights. Obviously, on the federal level, the delegation of authority for the "common defense" - a bunch of constitutional provisions address this - and "general welfare" - a whole 'nother can of worms - provides some authority. Even (most of) the conservatives on the Supreme Court recognize this issue. The States' authority on this issue is also recognized as much stronger than the federal ambit - which is what explains the anomalous decisions of Heller and McDonald (which was a terribly contorted decision that really doesn't make sense), because the conservative members took a very different position on this issue than most of the other issues they support (that's called "judicial activism").

Shall not be infringed.

NWRatCon · Mar 19, 2019

American said:
Why don't you look up the definition of arms?

arms
/ärmz/
noun
plural noun: arms

1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"arms exports"
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"

I have addressed this issue before, but this thread is over 60 pages long. "Arms" had a specific meaning for the framers of the Constitution, distinct from "armaments" (hence the prevalence of the phrase, "arms and armaments") - that can basically be distinguished as between "personal carry" (arms) and "crew served" (armaments) [which also explains the use of the term "bear"]. Just a clarification on the "modern" usage of the term (in some contexts), because the nature of modern weaponry has blurred this distinction.

Glitch · Apr 4, 2019

I admit that I have only read the first four and last three pages of posts in this thread, so if this has already been mentioned by someone else please forgive my oversight.

In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), under Article I, A, 1. Operative Clause b. "Keep and bear Arms." of the Opinion of the Court defines "Arms" in the Second Amendment:

b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from holder of the right - "the people" - to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms."

Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defense." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989)(hereinafter Webster)(similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The opinion continues with what it means to "keep arms" and to "bear arms," but the above quote is the Supreme Court's definition of "Arms" under the Second Amendment.

Besides being portable, the phrase "not specifically designed for military use" is an important distinction. Until very recently just about every man-portable firearm the military uses, or has used, was specifically designed for civilian use first. That includes the iconic AR-15. It is only the light fully-automatic machine guns, like the M249, that were specifically designed for military use. Other military weapons are not very portable, which is another key verb in the Second Amendment. The right only extends to the "Arms" one can "bear." Nobody is going to be hauling around a Browning M2 by hand, unless you are Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime. There are those who privately own fully functional fighter aircraft, tanks, and artillery pieces in addition to fully automatic machine guns. However, those private owners have special licenses from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives. Such weaponry is very closely regulated.

What the hysterical left define as an "assault weapon" does not fit the 1934 FBI definition of "assault weapon." According to the FBI an "assault weapon" is any firearm capable of fully automatic fire. No semi-automatic firearm, regardless of its appearance, can be construed as an "assault weapon."

zoebelle · Apr 5, 2019

Coyuga said:
To put very simply, the wording of the 2nd Amendment applies to all forms of weaponry, based on the language of the 2nd Amendment.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment here very clearly says 'Arms,' which means weaponry. Not FIREarms, which refers to guns.

I think everyone should be armed with an AR-15 at birth and should be protected to own these guns thier whole lives. Having our youth be protected is the best way to honor our fallen soldiers.

American · Apr 5, 2019

NWRatCon said:
I have addressed this issue before, but this thread is over 60 pages long. "Arms" had a specific meaning for the framers of the Constitution, distinct from "armaments" (hence the prevalence of the phrase, "arms and armaments") - that can basically be distinguished as between "personal carry" (arms) and "crew served" (armaments) [which also explains the use of the term "bear"]. Just a clarification on the "modern" usage of the term (in some contexts), because the nature of modern weaponry has blurred this distinction.

That's just wonderful, but doesn't change anything for about 99% of American gun owners.

VanceMack · Apr 5, 2019

Babykat said:
Still the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection.
A well regulated Militia, (militia not standing army. A militia being controlled by the state and not federal government) being necessary to the security of a free State (once again free state not nation. When The United States was founded it more resembled the UN. It was a bunch separate states agreeing to work together. So like the UN the states where worried about maintaining their own sovereign authority) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Keep in mind that the militia while being controlled by the state. It was still made up of civilians and not soldiers. So if the people couldn’t get access to military grade weapons they couldn’t form a well armed or regulated militia in defense of the free state. Now keep in mind this doesn’t mean that the state can’t impose arms bands. But instead that the federal government can’t impose gun bans. But like I have stated before the bill of rights isn’t about imposing laws on the people or states. But it’s about limiting the power of the federal government. While this right is based in the protection of the sovereign authority of the state. It still gives rights to the individual to keep and bare arms.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only real problem I have with your statement is the improper use of the term 'well regulated'. There were no 'regulations'. The term well regulated in historical vernacular meant "kept in good working order". It referred to the individual and their private ownership of, maintenance of, and training with a firearm. Nothing more. Clocks kept in good working order were termed 'well regulated'.

apdst · Apr 5, 2019

NWRatCon said:
I have addressed this issue before, but this thread is over 60 pages long. "Arms" had a specific meaning for the framers of the Constitution, distinct from "armaments" (hence the prevalence of the phrase, "arms and armaments") - that can basically be distinguished as between "personal carry" (arms) and "crew served" (armaments) [which also explains the use of the term "bear"]. Just a clarification on the "modern" usage of the term (in some contexts), because the nature of modern weaponry has blurred this distinction.

They meant anything, except nuclear weapons.

Grand Mal · Apr 5, 2019

zoebelle said:
I think everyone should be armed with an AR-15 at birth and should be protected to own these guns thier whole lives. Having our youth be protected is the best way to honor our fallen soldiers.

Sounds expensive. Good if you have Colt shares though.
Would answer a question that nags me sometimes- why is it a grown man can be deemed to need a firearm to protect himself when a 14-year-old girl has to move around in the same world unarmed? Surely she's more vulnerable than he is. Your plan would allow her to arm herself.

Glitch · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
Sounds expensive. Good if you have Colt shares though.
Would answer a question that nags me sometimes- why is it a grown man can be deemed to need a firearm to protect himself when a 14-year-old girl has to move around in the same world unarmed? Surely she's more vulnerable than he is. Your plan would allow her to arm herself.

Every women should be taught how to be proficient with a firearm. It is there choice whether or not to carry a firearm naturally, but they should at least receive the training.

Glitch · Apr 5, 2019

There is one issue regarding the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), concerning their definition of "Arms" under the Second Amendment. They define "Arms" as "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

The first part, "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use" is an easy test. Either the firearm was designed specifically for the military, or it wasn't. However, the second part of their definition is a bit more ambiguous. What happens when the military adopts a firearm that was specifically designed for civilian use initially? If the firearm is now being "employed in a military capacity" does it cease to fall under the definition of "Arms" under the Second Amendment?

For example, both the Mossberg Model 500 and Remington Model 570 are 12-guage pump-action shotguns designed specifically for civilian use. So it meets the first part of the Supreme Court's definition of "Arms" under the Second Amendment. But the military adopted both firearms and employed them both in a military capacity. Do they still qualify as "Arms" under the Second Amendment? Or are they now prohibited because they are "employed in a military capacity?"

My guess is that a firearm that was not specifically designed for military use, even though the military may later use the firearm, still qualifies under the definition of "Arms" in the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court is going to have to make that clarification.

Grand Mal · Apr 5, 2019

Glitch said:
Every women should be taught how to be proficient with a firearm. It is there choice whether or not to carry a firearm naturally, but they should at least receive the training.

Is a 14-year-old girl allowed to carry a gun?

Babykat · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
Is a 14-year-old girl allowed to carry a gun?

In AL yes and my daughters get their first gun at 8 years old. Plus my wife is well armed and trained. I only have one daughter under the age of 8 and she can’t wait to go shooting with daddy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glitch · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
Is a 14-year-old girl allowed to carry a gun?

I started hunting with my father by age 8. My father gave me my first 12-guage on my 10th birthday. Firearm safety training should begin young. We were never tempted to play with our firearms as kids because we knew they weren't toys, and more importantly, why they were dangerous. The firearm should be tailored to the shooter, naturally. You might start off an 8 or 9 year-old girl with a .22 cal. rifle or pistol. The goal should be to make them proficient. Whether or not they decide to continue carrying a firearm is entirely up to them, but at least they should get the training.

Grand Mal · Apr 5, 2019

Glitch said:
I started hunting with my father by age 8. My father gave me my first 12-guage on my 10th birthday. Firearm safety training should begin young. We were never tempted to play with our firearms as kids because we knew they weren't toys, and more importantly, why they were dangerous. The firearm should be tailored to the shooter, naturally. You might start off an 8 or 9 year-old girl with a .22 cal. rifle or pistol. The goal should be to make them proficient. Whether or not they decide to continue carrying a firearm is entirely up to them, but at least they should get the training.

Don't waste my time like that. If you can't answer my question, I'm not interested in your family nostalgia.

TurtleDude · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
Is a 14-year-old girl allowed to carry a gun?

Depends on the area and who she is with. Certainly on her own property with her parents permission. Or in a shooting competition. On the city streets, no.

Grand Mal · Apr 5, 2019

TurtleDude said:
Depends on the area and who she is with. Certainly on her own property with her parents permission. Or in a shooting competition. On the city streets, no.

In the context of the discussion, where a grown man needs to have the right to carry a firearm to protect himself, should a 14-year-old girl who is certainly more vulnerable than a grown man be allowed to have a firearm to defend herself with?
"no" seems like an odd answer in the context.

TurtleDude · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
In the context of the discussion, where a grown man needs to have the right to carry a firearm to protect himself, should a 14-year-old girl who is certainly more vulnerable than a grown man be allowed to have a firearm to defend herself with?
"no" seems like an odd answer in the context.

Society has determined that children are not mature enough to carry deadly weapons. now a child alone at home-I have no issue with them having access to firearms assuming they are properly trained. If you want to argue that a 14 year old girl should be able to CCW in public-go ahead and do it

Grand Mal · Apr 5, 2019

TurtleDude said:
Society has determined that children are not mature enough to carry deadly weapons. now a child alone at home-I have no issue with them having access to firearms assuming they are properly trained. If you want to argue that a 14 year old girl should be able to CCW in public-go ahead and do it

No, I'm not putting that arguement. Just, if Joe Blow who needs the right to carry a handgun in publc to protect himself is in a cashier lineup behind 14-year-old Tiffany Doe who moves around the same world unarmed, what does that say about Joe? She's far more vulnerable to violence than he is. How does Joe justify his right to be armed without pushing for Tiffany to have the same right?

TurtleDude · Apr 5, 2019

Grand Mal said:
No, I'm not putting that arguement. Just, if Joe Blow who needs the right to carry a handgun in publc to protect himself is in a cashier lineup behind 14-year-old Tiffany Doe who moves around the same world unarmed, what does that say about Joe? She's far more vulnerable to violence than he is. How does Joe justify his right to be armed without pushing for Tiffany to have the same right?

Same reason that a fit 21 year old can drive a car even though he can walk, but a five year old kid cannot.

Grand Mal · Apr 6, 2019

TurtleDude said:
Same reason that a fit 21 year old can drive a car even though he can walk, but a five year old kid cannot.

Not even close analogies though, are they. Joe Blow is a grown man who needs to carry a handgun to protect himself but Tiffany Doe, who moves around in the same world and is certainly more vulnerable than Joe, is not allowed to arm herself.
Are American gun laws intended to allow people the right to defend themselves? Why does Joe have that right but Tiffany hasn't?

The 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons.

warrior of the wetlands

Active member

Trump Grump Whisperer

Member

Member

global liberation

Eco**Social Marketeer

New member

Trump Grump Whisperer

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

Active member

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

warrior of the wetlands

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

warrior of the wetlands

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

warrior of the wetlands

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!