In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
POLL: How do you define "Arms"?
WoundedWolf
Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
How do you interpret "Arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment? List at what point on the list you would start restricting possession of the listed items. Current law typically starts at around #4 to #6:
1. Single-Shot rifle/pistol
2. Single-Action revolver
3. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
4. Double-Action revolver
5. Semi-Auto pistol
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Howitzer/Artillery
15. Missile
16. ICBM (non-nuke)
17. Nuclear Missile
18. What was, is, and will ever be!!!
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
How do you interpret "Arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment? List at what point on the list you would start restricting possession of the listed items. Current law typically starts at around #4 to #6:
1. Single-Shot rifle/pistol
2. Single-Action revolver
3. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
4. Double-Action revolver
5. Semi-Auto pistol
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
14. Howitzer/Artillery
15. Missile
16. ICBM (non-nuke)
17. Nuclear Missile
18. What was, is, and will ever be!!!
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
Comments
Would you post this out on the General Discussion board?
Or with your permission, I will.
I would be interested in seeing the results from the members there too.
Can I steal it, to post on another site?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
;-)
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
-WW
"History will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi
As far a nuclear weapons and the like... I don't see much defensive use there. An ICBM could easily be used against foreign countries and as such, the foreigners would think of the US much the way we think of the Taliban.[V]
If a criminal comes to your house any of the previously mentioned toys (except nukes) would be useful. ICBMs wouldn't do much good. If you were to use these against your attacker, you'd both be dead. No point in blowing up the whole city.
i would argue it would be anything that can be directed at an individual target. there may be some question of grenades tow missles and artillery as these would be expected to be supplied by the govt in time of war. based on the militia and its history a military rifle and ammunition definitely are covered.
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
However, in the context of militia, most would take that to mean firearms, however I would add grenades, booby traps and other explosives to that list..but that's my personal preference.
John
A friend will post your bail. A good friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying, "man that was fun!"
Works for me.
________________________________________________________________________
Before they can convince you that rights emanate from them (the government), they must first eliminate God. They are working 24/7 to accomplish this.
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine
If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
Grenades are not defensive weapons, and are certainly not made to be used to protect oneself in tight quarters. Thus, I can go along with SOME public possession automatic weapons, if a person is fit to be in a militia as defined in the times of the Founding Fathers (i.e. not a criminal and not a lunatic and capable of fighting to defend the country from a foreign or domestic enemy, not some Republic of Texas freaks).
How do we get to allowing people to have those weapons? Of course, there has to be (and is) a licensing program for automatic weapons. Now, is that a fair process? Rarely, but expanding that is expensive and time-consuming. You'd have to be a lunatic yourself to want to just open up the sale of automatic weapons to anyone without licensing, because the neighborhood nut would certainly have one. I agree that the beauracracy that is the Federal government moves far too slowly and is rarely responsive to the individual citizen.
Obviously, I'd prefer a more equitable plan to allow sane and law-abiding citizens to carry arms nationwide and to possess, for defensive purposes, those weapons that are modern versions of the type of weapons used by militia members of the Colonies to fight off the British. This would, to me, include small rifles of the type of the AR-15 or AK-47, possibly in full-auto mode.
However, having been in the Army for almost 8 years, I can say with conviction that having full-auto, as I had on an old M-16A1 in ROTC training, was far less useful than the 3 round burst on the M-16A2. Full-auto is virtually useless unless you are using it to provide covering fire to support an offensive assault, or if ambushed and you are fighting off a larger force spread over a distance. It is certainly useless for anything other than to create a massive amount of civil liability for anyone thinking of using one to defend one's home.
CG
"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of fear we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men"
First of all, I only saw one person mention it, but knives, swords, tomahawks and spears are definitely in there, yet knife laws are oppressively plentiful, and almost never challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. I don't know if they ever have been in fact. I'm an avid knife collector and it never ceases to amaze me that many of my peers will not even consider the premise that blades are, or should be, considered weapons as much as they are considered a workin' man's tool. I personally would never use a knife as a weapon, but then, I live where concealed carry of guns is legal and easy to get permitted for. Still, so many knife enthusiasts poo-poo the sinister way some production knives look and are marketed, and it always reminds me of the blind hysteria that allowed the AWB to become law. It's all about cosmetics, and not about truly protecting anyone from those evil "assault weapons."
Anyway, I'm with the folks who believe that, at the very least, legal accessibility by law-abiding citizens to ANY weapon an oppressive government can array against us is "arms" in the context of the 2nd Amendment. I say "at the very least" because I not only believe that we should have accessibility, I believe that if the government were truly serving us as was envisioned by our Founders, and had nothing to fear from a well-armed populace, that it would encourage us to share the financial responsibility of defending this country just like the original Minutemen did with their own weapons, up to and including similar arms as Britain brought to bear on them. Anything less defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and there is a myriad of writings from our Founders and their contemporaries that make the purpose clear as a bell; God gave us this right to defend our persons, our communities and our country from outside enemies, as well as from a run amock government inside our borders. Just look at my sig for one example among many available ones to confirm that notion.
All the amendments have their righteous place of honor in the Constitution, but only the 2nd ensures that we can actually enforce it upon our government. We can't be the militia that our forefathers envisioned if we're held to fighting cannon with pea-shooters.
Bottom line, all gun control and weapons control should be abolished, or more to the point, ruled unconstitutional, and laws requiring safe handling and good training on weapons should be instituted in their place. That is, if we give a collective crap about preserving what our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.
Blues
Welcome to the forum.
I see #8 on up as not being "arms" in the conventional sense and therefore not guaranteed to rank and file American citizens by the 2nd Amendment.
I personally don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard.
No doubt there will be a considerable difference of opinion regarding my view.
2. Single-Action revolver
3. Bolt/Lever-Action rifle
4. Double-Action revolver
5. Semi-Auto pistol
6. Semi-Auto rifle
7. Full-Auto rifle/pistol (UZI, MAC-10, AK-47, M-16)
8. Machine Gun (stationary, not hand-held. M-60, unless you are Rambo)
9. Grenades
10. RPG
11. Mortar
12. Rocket Launcher
13. TOW (guided rocket)
These are all the weapon classifications that are specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment.
As for the others, they could be considered useful to the militia, no doubt, and it was not expected that soldiers be armed with artillery pieces, but with the possession of rocket launchers, flamethrowers and grenades, artillery pieces could be easily destroyed, including tanks. I'm not saying everyone should be barred from their ownership, by any means, but these are things that cannot be wielded, and are not effective on a battle field by guerilla fighters, and in short, could be construed as wastes of money. Better to capture enemy artillery and use it against them.
I would say ICBM's and Nukes fall into a totally different class of weaponry, as they could be only be employed effectivly, not for the security of a free state, but as an attacking platform against another country.
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government?
Blues
Slow Hand, before I would challange your opinion, I would need to know what precisely you base it on. Are you aware of any quotes by any Framers in which the word "arms" refers to anything other than those appropriate both as military arms and hunting/self-defense arms? Do you accept the premise that the 2nd Amendment was intended, among other intentions, as a bulwark against usurpations of power by an unchecked federal government? Or I guess I should say, do you accept that the Founders generally accepted that premise, regardless of the evolution of thought since then? Remember, I'm only responding to your opinion that you, "don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard."
Here's my problem with the notion that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is limited at a certain level of lethality of weaponry: First, nowhere that I've found does any Founder ever state such. Of all the people in the history of man who weren't shy about stating their intentions succinctly, articulately and unambiguously, Jefferson, Hamilton and all the rest were at the top of that list. It's hard to understand how one might assert that their true intentions are absent in the text of their speeches and/or writings.
Second, many Founders stated that a part of their intent was to guarentee citizens' rights of self-defense, among other things, from an emerging tyrannical government. If that was their intent, then by what logic should we surmise they intended us to be a weaker force with inferior arms to that government?
Blues
Welcome to GB BlueStringer!
Your difference of opinion is duly noted and appreciated. Thank you!
Similarly, you have no proof other than what you yourself read into the 2nd Amendment about exactly what the founding fathers intended should constitute "arms".
Arms? Weapons? Are they one and the same? Perhaps, but I personally do not believe that they are, at least not in all instances.
Was "arms" meant to include warships, cannons et al or was it more along the lines of what was readily available to common citizens back then? Musket? Pistol? Bayonet? Axe? Lance? Mace?
We both agree that since the FF's are not around to interview, we'll never quite know for sure and so the best we can do is make educated guesses.
But, this is a very good question and it does make for good and open discussion, a lot of thought and also a lot of conjecture.
Enjoy GB!
Welcome to GB BlueStringer!Thanks for the welcome Slow Hand.quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandYour difference of opinion is duly noted and appreciated. Thank you!Actually, I intentionally didn't state a difference of opinion but rather, asked you to clarify what you base yours on.quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandSimilarly, you have no proof other than what you yourself read into the 2nd Amendment about exactly what the founding fathers intended should constitute "arms".No, I have much more to go on than my own biased suppositions. I have 85 separate volumes of The Federalist Papers, all written by Founders, and all chronicling the debates/corrections/meanings/intentions of The Constitution prior to its ratification. I can find literally hundreds of quotes separate and apart from the Federalist Papers, of speeches on the floors of Congress, legal opinions from the first few Supreme Court justices, personal writings from Founders and their contemporaries and on and on, all of which at least give us clues as to what original intent was, and in many cases outright and unambiguous proclamations.
If we have "no proof" of what the FF intended re: the 2nd Amendment, then we have no proof that the Constitution in its entirety meant anything. We have to dig into the archives to gain that understanding, and when one does, there's a pleathora of resources to consult which paint a very clear picture of their intentions. To the extent that I've let my opinion slip out when trying to stick to only asking you to source yours, mine are based entirely on my nearly life-long fascination with decyphering original intent. The only way to decypher it is to delve deeply into it, which I have, and which is the sole basis for my conclusions concerning original intent. I would argue that we do have gads of proof of what original intent was/is, and I attempt always to keep my own biases and speculations out of it when trying to articulate it.quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandArms? Weapons? Are they one and the same? Perhaps, but I personally do not believe that they are, at least not in all instances.If we're talking about what the Founders originally intended, which is what I'm talking about anyway, then please provide some evidence that they intended for government to make semantic distinctions in some instances and not in others. A quote, a speech, a letter to a friend, something to butress your hypothesis of what the Founders had in mind.quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandWas "arms" meant to include warships, cannons et al or was it more along the lines of what was readily available to common citizens back then? Musket? Pistol? Bayonet? Axe? Lance? Mace?As far as I can tell from extensive reading, all of the above. At least I've never run across anything from the late 18th or early 19th Centuries, when the Founders were still around to ask, that flat out contradict that notion.
Edit for added content:
I can't let one thing go by without comment here. Can you define "common citizen?" If the government is "We The People" then who is "common" among us? The government is us, and we are the government. In reality, we're all intended to be common, with common duties, common loyalties, common rights etc, whether government employee or private citizen. The notion that only government workers should be heavily armed, and us "commoners" should be kept lesser armed is completely antithetical to my understanding of the 2nd Amendment in particular, or the premise of "We The People" generally.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandWe both agree that since the FF's are not around to interview, we'll never quite know for sure and so the best we can do is make educated guesses.We most certainly do not agree on this point. As mentioned above, there is a mountain of evidence to inform us of the Founders' original intent. If read, debated, scrutinized and understood with any amount of context to the times, it far surpasses making "educated guesses." One might argue that the Founders would change their intent if they envisioned the kind of weapons available to mankind today, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what they said/thought/believed/wrote back then. In context to the times, there is little (I would contend no) doubt that the Founders intended the citizenry be armed to the degree that it could defeat a military power, whether from without or within, with certain obvious limitations on the "within" part, but I'd say that's another discussion altogether.quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandBut, this is a very good question and it does make for good and open discussion, a lot of thought and also a lot of conjecture.
Enjoy GB!I am indeed enjoying GB, and even moreso when I get my Kel-Tec SU16A that I ordered from a very accomodating gentleman in Florida just last Thursday. This will be the first "assault" weapon I've ever bought, and my freedom to do it is thanks to the original intent of our Founding Fathers that we're talking about here. Gun Broker couldn't exist as it is without preserving as much of that original intent as is humanly possible. Our liberation from the unconstitutional and idiotic "Assault Weapons Ban" only a year or so ago is proof that at times in our history we have been complacent in holding our government to the restrictions on its power within the Constitution that it is duty-bound to operate under, and that we are duty-bound to be ever-vigilant of. Bottom line, if original intent were as ambiguous and nebulous as you appear to believe it is, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation, at least not on an auction site devoted to one great American premise; The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Blues
Opinions are like *ssh*les in that everyone has one. All I did was offer mine.
Enjoy!
BluesStringer;
Welcome aboard..and sounds like it would be an honor to share a foxhole with you.....and given the mighty strides made in the last couple years by the Beast, that may not be just rhetoric at all...
Don't get huffy, Slow Hand..it ain't becoming.[:D]
BluesStringer;
Welcome aboard..and sounds like it would be an honor to share a foxhole with you.....and given the mighty strides made in the last couple years by the Beast, that may not be just rhetoric at all...
Hi ya Highball! Good to see you're posting again. Thought you took a vacation. [:)]
Slow Hand, you are obviously more than welcome to your opinions, and I don't mean to single you out since others have voiced similar ones as yours. However, you made the statement that, "I personally don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." and I am still curious what you base that on, especially in light of your new revelation that you have no interest in reading their own words on the subject to help you know what their thinking was. If what you're looking for is support for holding an opinion that is not based in fact, head on, you have my support. I don't understand why anyone would, as Highball described it, "get huffy" just because a countering opinion to yours is based in fact. But I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong."
HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with.
But I've been in here too long today and now I gotta go climb into my own personal little foxhole and see if I can't negotiate a cease-fire with the ol' lady for not helping around the house today! [:I]
Have A Good'un,
Blues
Monitoring the site now and again...but no real arguments, so just lurking.
Any thing up to crew served weapons...and THEY ought to be down at the local armory, availible for use when the Beast shows its teeth. THAT is what the Founders meant..the ability to utterly destroy those in power when they finally allow their madness to overcome their senses.
1. Our gov't should not be in the business of "protecting" our rights, we should.
2. Our gov't should not be attempting to bar ownership of anything...period.
3. Our gov't seems bent on depriving us of our arms, and this act is never a good thing.
4. Should our gov't ever succeed, the police state will then begin genocide of anyone it wants eliminated. This could be accomplished by turning criminals loose on us as easily as it could mean a campaign of evil against us.
5. The main target will be gun owners, as they serve as the greatest threat.
6. That does not mean homos, blacks, minorities, Christians or any other group is free. They could merely be next.
7. Voting will not fix this problem, as polticians are locked in their position out of our belief that the lesser of two evils is OK. It is not.
8. When the gov't has a monopoly on force, a police state ensues.
9. In order for a police state to exist, it must have an enemy.
10. If it runs out of enemies, it will make new enemies.
11. Will you be one of them???
Hey Highball, thanks to you for the welcome too.
Slow Hand, you are obviously more than welcome to your opinions, and I don't mean to single you out since others have voiced similar ones as yours. However, you made the statement that, "I personally don't believe that the founding fathers envisioned the average citizen having a cannon or a catapult in his or her front yard." and I am still curious what you base that on, especially in light of your new revelation that you have no interest in reading their own words on the subject to help you know what their thinking was. If what you're looking for is support for holding an opinion that is not based in fact, head on, you have my support. I don't understand why anyone would, as Highball described it, "get huffy" just because a countering opinion to yours is based in fact. But I'll gladly join Highball in that foxhole to defend your right to hold any opinion you wish to hold, as you say, "right or wrong."
HIghball, I agree, the Beast is alive and well and has given us many reasons to prepare beyond simple rhetoric. Insurrection is illegal and it should be. Quelling the usurpation of power by a run amock government is not only legal, it's our duty. Those who don't understand the distinction, or believe the latter to be factually wrong, are people I wouldn't want to share any foxhole with.
But I've been in here too long today and now I gotta go climb into my own personal little foxhole and see if I can't negotiate a cease-fire with the ol' lady for not helping around the house today! [:I]
Have A Good'un,
Blues
By "common citizen" I mean to include every single American citizen, not just the miltary, police, socially prominent, politicians, wealthy, white, educated, etc.
As well read and learned on the founding fathers as you no doubt are, you have to know that legal scholars have vehemently debated the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment in the decades since.
Therefore, and with that said, there must be some measure of solid ground to support alternate interpretations.
Just remember that I support the 2nd Amendment. Our differences lie in our respective opinions of the Amendment's purpose with regards to the substance of the original poll question.
No matter, I applaud your conviction and I'm glad you're here on GB, BluesStringer.
My take is based on the word "bear", if you can carry it, the Second Amendment protects it.
On three different dictionary sites, if it wasn't describing a body-part, and was referring to the word "arm" as a noun, all of the definitions offered related to preparing for armed conflict, equipping an army with weapons etc. Not one single definition was offered that put any limitations whatsoever on the size or lethality, such as if you can carry it, it qualifies as an "arm." For example:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com
arm 2 Pronunciation (?rm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
v. armed, arm?ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
Now, #1 says, "especillay a firearm," but then when it gives examples, it's all about military-style weapons, up to and including ICBMs and "other" nuclear "arms."
When you look up "armaments" on the same site (as well as the other two I perused), you get the following:
1. The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.
2. All the military forces and war equipment of a country. Often used in the plural.
3. A military force equipped for war.
4. The process of arming for war.
Now, I'm assuming, since the Founders were British subjects before undertaking the Revolution, that they were very well-versed in the English language. I'm also assuming that there were dictionaries a'plenty back then, and that they were used extensively to make sure they used the proper words to convey the ideals, precepts and concepts that the Constitution was/is meant to define.
What I'm getting at is that, if today's dictionaries haven't put limits on size/lethality of weapons it includes under their descriptions/definitions of the very word used in the 2nd Amendment, how on earth would we surmise that the Founders intended for the word "arms" to stop being an individual right at a certain kind/size/lethal weapon? The words used were used because the Founders meant to use them, and they meant to convey the definitions that are understood by English-speaking people, who, when confronted with words which seem ambiguous or are not fully understood, turn to an English dictionary to gain clarity of their meaning(s). In every case in the three dictionaries I looked at, "arms" or "armaments" were words relating to equipping men for combat. The combat that the Founders contemplated in future-tense in all their writings, refer to 1) defending the country from foreign invasion/aggression, and 2) defending the country from internal usurpations of power by the home-grown government. That's it folks. If you look to the Founders for clarification of the word "arms," you will not find references to needing weaponry for hunting or sporting purposes, you will only find that the individual right was meant to augment the nation's defense in a military context, either from within or without.
I wonder how long it will take for someone to pop up and say I'm reading words too literally, that the dictionary-definition of words don't count, only the modern, evolved definitions do. If words don't mean what their corresponding dictionary definitions say they mean because of some modern "wiggle-room," I would call that devolution, not evolution.
Blues
It would definitely take someone like me considerable research but I'm guessing that you already have a very good idea of exactly what had been invented, developed, devised and available back in the latter part of the 18th century. I'm guessing that England (Europe) would have probably had arms and manufacturing processes of greater sophistication than what the Colonies had so, if you would, please include all of Europe as well.
IMO, that would be a very good starting point from which to continue this thread which is, in fact, a very good one.
Welcome aboard Blue. Good to have ya. I mostly lurk, but can be counted on for my 2
Your thought processes are on a slippery slope...or already bought into the One World concept.
Limiting 'our' choices to what the founders 'could' have carried...means that radio, tv, the internet can be restricted to whatever those in power wish you to hear or see..already done, I grant you..but the real kind of controls enjoyed by the Chinese Elites...
Slow Hand;
Your thought processes are on a slippery slope...or already bought into the One World concept.
Limiting 'our' choices to what the founders 'could' have carried...means that radio, tv, the internet can be restricted to whatever those in power wish you to hear or see..already done, I grant you..but the real kind of controls enjoyed by the Chinese Elites...
My opinions if you please......
Highball, here's why I'm pressing this issue a bit. You know my background and I know yours. And, we respect each other as men. The problem in preserving the 2nd Amendment is not, IMO, with folks like yourself who were raised with guns from an early age and served in the Marine Corps or with BluesStringer who may have been as well and who is well-versed on the subject.
It's actually with all of the people like me who were not raised around guns, did not have the privilege of serving our Country in the military and may not be devotees of Colonial American history et al.
Although I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I can still speak reasonably accurately to the "mindset" of the gunless big city dwellers who number in the tens of millions.
These people are OUR target audience.
And, my voice might, if you all allow it to, add some balance to these arguments and actually help improve things. Or not.
I'm hoping that this argument over military-style weapons will NEVER be made in front of gun control activists and supporters because I fear that it plays right into their hand so to speak.
We'd appear to them as anarchists or whackos or terrorists and be giving them a wealth of ammunition to shoot us down with. We must remember the times we live in, the world climate and perception.
Perception IS reality. For you, me, the GC activists and everyone else.
Whether or not any of this was actually intended by the Framers is IMO secondary to the potential damage this posture takes towards preserving the existence of the 2nd Amendment at the point it's at right here and now.
Let's put ideology aside for a moment and not argue for the sake of arguing.
We don't live in a perfect world. The battle squarely in front of us is what must be fought. Theory and/or history is nice and it makes for good spirited discussion but as we sit around this particular campfire and jaw back and forth with each other, there are people very hard at work trying to make the simplest of handguns illegal.
I don't believe that all this wonderful military weaponry is germane in the here and now to the immediate crisis at hand. For the majority of average or typical gun owners, owning any of it is moot, beyond legal, feasible or even practical.
I fully understand that you do don't want the government telling you that you can't legally own one IF you so desired and I truly respect that sentiment but I'm not going to spit into the wind either or draw unnecessary fire. Live to fight another day - no?
Again, it's not IMO the immediate problem here before us in 2006, another important election year.
By all means continue to feel the way you do and have conversations about it but let's not shove talk of these weapons into the faces of those activists who think that a .22 is a WMD. I believe that we should not supply them with even more fodder for their cause. Make it as difficult as we can for them to advance their agenda? Yes!!
Again, I urge all of us who want to grow the ranks - so to speak - to think less like those who were raised with guns and more like the masses who do not yet own a gun BUT who may in fact be 2nd Amendment supporters and want to one day.
You do not have to compromise anything to do that.
Know your audience. It's critical.
And please remember that I'm NOT against you folks or the 2nd Amendment. You're probably just not used to someone like me - yet.[:)]
Thank you for reading. God bless America.
Now, as for myself...I believe there is no better time then right now to insist that an out of control government live by the Second Amendment..and damn the people that would disarm us. MOLON LABE !! is my stand...no more compromises, no more eroding of the Second, no more bowing the knee to the Elites...and the half-wits that think disarming is the solution to violence and crime.
Would you put it off 10 years, 20, 30..till people with even a dim grasp of the Constitution are dead ? What difference would it make then,,as totalitarism sweeps out of the dark reaches of the Elites minds and fills the concentration camps again ?
The "Putting off " I speak of...is the attempt to teach people what the Second refers to ? Not the limp, luckluster shell it is today...but the roaring, lusty triumph of the people over big government and tryanny ?
Understand this, Slow Hand...I hold you..as I do TrFox..in the highest regard. I think you are a man of principle..you stood the abuse I subjected you to early on and came back strong...as I expect a man to do. However, men will disagree..and still share a cup of coffee..or a foxhole.
BluesStringer, I respectfully encourage you to list all of the arms (weapons, armaments) and also production techniques or processes that were available and that the Framers were actually familiar with back then.
Ummm....No thanks. Seems a total waste of time to me, and the absolute best I could do is engage in conjecture about what the Framers were actually familiar with anyway. If the English language had significantly changed since the late 18th Century, and the words in question could be shown to hold a different meaning than when the Framers used them, I might see the point in trying to determine their meanings from a days-gone-by perspective, but I've at least proven to my own satisfaction that the word "arms" is in no way time-sensitive, and means exactly today what it meant 220 years ago. Remember, the original question in this thread was, "How do you interpret "Arms" as defined by the 2nd Amendment?" I have no interest in engaging in conjecture. I interpret the word "arms" the way that I believe the Framers meant it to be interpreted, period, and I've tried very hard to show that my beliefs in that regard are based entirely on what I can gather from the things they said both before and after the Constitution was ratified. Whether or not any of them were on a par with Nostrodamus and could see the future of weaponry is unknown to anyone, but since I have never run across any writings by any Founders claiming such vision, or warning of increased lethality as industrial sciences evolve, I'm going to remain comfortable with the belief that they intended for their words to mean what they say, and to endure intact until such time as the amendment process is utilized to change 'em. So no, I won't be making lists of all the things I have no knowledge of.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandIt would definitely take someone like me considerable research but I'm guessing that you already have a very good idea of exactly what had been invented, developed, devised and available back in the latter part of the 18th century.
I probably do have a decent grasp of the state of development of arms in those days, but it's 100% irrelevent to anything I've said in this thread, and I don't see the point of making lists that do nothing to strengthen or clarify the points I'm making here. The clause we're discussing (or asked by the thread-originator to discuss) is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." There's no caveats there to suggest that they intended for the evolution of the arms industry to have a restrictive effect on the right, which shall NOT be infringed. The word "arms" is all-inclusive as far as anyone can prove, and the right to keep and bear them, all of them, shall not be infringed. Not "may" not. Not "maybe" not. Not "shall not unless the gun just gets too damned big." SHALL NOT, period.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandI'm guessing that England (Europe) would have probably had arms and manufacturing processes of greater sophistication than what the Colonies had so, if you would, please include all of Europe as well.
Why only all of Europe and the Colonies? Are you aware that the Chinese had gunpowder many decades (I think even several centuries if memory serves) before any other peoples? Why not just run down the entire history of man and his weapons, and just stop at July 4th, 1776, and say, "This is what they meant by arms in the 2nd Amendment. Anything devised, invented or evolved beyond this date is not included in the amendment's protections." I know it sounds absurd, but I can think of no other premise that you could be getting at by asking me to indulge this meaningless exercise.
quote:Originally posted by Slow_HandIMO, that would be a very good starting point from which to continue this thread which is, in fact, a very good one.
Well, I'm happy with the starting point that I've been responding to all along; the meaning of the word "arms" as written in the 2nd Amendment.
quote:Although I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I can still speak reasonably accurately to the "mindset" of the gunless big city dwellers who number in the tens of millions.
These people are OUR target audience.
But we're ALL the Constitution's target audience, and many who believe as I do would reject the notion that the document changes one iota depending on what audience is dealing with it at any given time. If the "gunless big city dwellers" possess a drastic lack of understanding about our history in general, or the 2nd Amendment in particular, our mission is to educate them, NOT dummy ourselves down to their uninformed level so that we can "target" them with politically correct platitudes.
quote:I'm hoping that this argument over military-style weapons will NEVER be made in front of gun control activists and supporters because I fear that it plays right into their hand so to speak.
We'd appear to them as anarchists or whackos or terrorists and be giving them a wealth of ammunition to shoot us down with. We must remember the times we live in, the world climate and perception.
People who rewrite history and the Constitution itself in order to comport with their sensibilities of the "times we live in" appear to me as anarchists, whackos and terrorists. I mean, if the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, then "anarchy" is exactly what we have right this minute. If the Constitution does mean what it says, and a faction of citizens make arguments for change with no basis in reality of the meaning, well, then "whackos" are exactly who we're dealing with. If the Constitution is the law of the land and that law is usurped in an unconstitutional manner (other than through the amendment process), then the usurpers are every bit as much terrorists as any of us law-abiding gun owners are. Is there anyone here who doesn't feel real terror at the thought of Sarah Brady setting the definitions of the Constitution?
quote:Perception IS reality. For you, me, the GC activists and everyone else.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Where I'm from, reality is reality, and I'm not going to coddle a bunch of do-gooders who don't know the difference between Thomas Jefferson and George Jefferson, and lend them any credibility in a serious discussion of such monumental import as the future of, and yes, even survival of, this country. It would behoove them to bend our way instead of us bending theirs, for two reasons. One, we have the guns [/tounge-in-cheek] and, two, we have the LAW. Why would a true patriot minimalize the importance and sacrosanct nature of the Constitution just to coddle uninformed, uninspired, disloyal enemies of the document?
quote:Whether or not any of this was actually intended by the Framers is IMO secondary to the potential damage this posture takes towards preserving the existence of the 2nd Amendment at the point it's at right here and now.
I don't want to preserve "the existence of the 2nd Amendment at the point it's at right here and now." I want to preserve it at the point it was at when it was written! Otherwise, there's no "preserving" taking place at all, but instead, an acquiescence on our part to it's ever-threatening chipping away to obscurity and irrelevence in American life.
quote:We don't live in a perfect world. The battle squarely in front of us is what must be fought. Theory and/or history is nice and it makes for good spirited discussion but as we sit around this particular campfire and jaw back and forth with each other, there are people very hard at work trying to make the simplest of handguns illegal.
You do realize don't you, that if those hard-working, gun-grabbing, liberty-stifling people manage to succeed in making the simplest of handguns illegal, and they do so without the committment of going through the purposefully-arduous amendment process, that their very actions themselves would be illegal? How can a government that is bound by the law to refrain from infringing on an individual's right to bear arms, infringe on their right to bear arms and be legal in doing so? But we should cower at the thought that there's people and government officials out there who want to illegally disarm us? I don't even know how to respond to such a notion, except to say, I think your approach will simply get us more of what we've been getting since the first major gun-control act in 1934. Again, no thanks.
It's getting late and I gotta get outta here, but please consider this: We defeated the Assault Weapons Ban. Several states, including mine, have recently voted in "Castle Doctrine" laws, which, simply stated, codifies into law a person's right to not retreat in the face of violent crime, and to resist with deadly force if need be. Doesn't sound to me like the bleeding heart Safetycrats are making much headway in this battle. It sounds to me like they're losing ground. With that in mind, this is not the time to soften our stance or "moderate" our strongly-held convictions that we're protecting and preserving the greatest document ever penned by mankind, The Constitution of The United States of America. Moderating the Constitution already took place 220 (+/-) years ago in extensive debate, cantankerous confrontations, and eventual unity of purpose. A bunch of bleeding heart yahoos should not be allowed to overrule any of it without facing the scorn of their countrymen, and that's exactly what I personally have for them, scorn.
Blues
And so we agree to disagree and I'm okay with that. It sounds like both of you are okay with that as well.
Please read the post from Blues Stringer VERY carefully...then reread it.
He talks the language that you should apreciate...and does it very well. Nothing of the flame-thrower that I am in there....just a careful rendition of facts.
I don't EVER expect that I will stop trying to drag people over to the middle of the road..for that is where the Constitution is..a balance point between the extremes. The founders knew exactly what they were doing, arming the people...and the Elites know EXACTLY what THEY are doing today, disarming the people.
Disarmed peoples = piles of bodies..courtesy of governments.