Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?

[calsdad]

I'm writing this post in hopes of getting some serious replies. (Smartasses feel free, but please preface your comment with: "I'm being a smartass")

As an AR owner, I'm as sick of the question: "why do you need a weapon like that?" as anyone else.

My standard answer is: "I don't have to justify my needs to you, it's my fundamental human right," that is, the right of self defense.

But, for instance, I was asked, by a gun owner, what was the possible purpose of a Barret .50 was. (with the obvious followup being why shouldn't it be banned) All I could say was that what the Hell, if someone wanted to spend a few grand on that weapon, what was the harm?

I can see the restrictions on nuclear weapons. I can even see restrictions on explosives. But beyond that, I don't see it. Full-Auto? -go for it. Put the ones that abuse away forever, but leave the rest of us the F**** alone.

So what do you folks say? (not what you'd LIKE to say) to this kind of argument? I'd like to have something better than "You can never trust government to be benign" which has always been my default argument against gun control.

Is there something more convincing? (especially to the young/naive) or am i just hoping for the impossible?

I can argue 2nd Amendment til I'm blue in the face. But what other logical,/historical argument can i make to otherwise skeptical folks that gun control is a bad idea? I believe that there ARE other arguments, but I haven't heard/read them clearly stated. Any suggestions? I'm all ears, because I have a lot of people I'd like to convince. I honestly believe that the facts are on our side. That the history of tyranny is so rampant that no government, even ours, can ever be trusted with absolute, un-rivaled power.

But I also know that this view is not necessarily shared by many in our society. How do we convince these people? Any thoughts? I'm all ears.

There are a lot of arguments to be made around protecting gun ownership. The range the gamut from protecting yourself against personal crime, to protecting the government and the country you live in from foreign invasion - to protecting yourself from your own govt. There are also arguments to be made around protection of people against tyranny and genocide - and the proper role of the "civilian" in a modern society.

The problem with a lot of the people whom you will end up in an argument over gun control - is that they are looking for a simple slogan that will convince them that guns are good - to dispel the propaganda that their heads are filled with that is easily encapsulated in BS like: "guns kill people".

I think one of the easiest things you can do in response to people like this is to say " why don't you explain to me why you think I DONT need this, since you seem to think I shouldn't have it."

Turn the tables on them for change and make them defend their position - instead of the other way around. Then once they start spouting bullshit - if you make yourself informed about all the normal talking points - you can shoot down all their excuses.

In my experience you are unlikely to run across an anti who is very well informed. So if you are informed - you can do well in defending your point of view. But put them on the defensive first by making them say WHY you SHOULD NOT be able to own the gun.

The good thing is - I think the job of arguing for gun ownership is getting easier given the current political and economic environment. The reasons to own a .50BMG rifle ARE a little harder to explain than the reasons to own an AR however. A lot of this has to do with the hyperbole and outright bullshit that the general public - and even a lot of "gun owners" believe about this firearm.

The basic reasoning behind your ability as an individual to own firearms such as semi-auto military pattern rifles, .50BMG rifles, 20mm anti tank rifles, machine guns, etc. - is that ALL of these are right now - or have been in the past - carried by infantry soldiers. Therefore they are logical and legal to own by civilians who are defined by US Code as belonging to the militia. In order to have a viable militia - it must be armed with weaponry that make it a viable military force.

This will of course lead into a discussion of the viability of the militia - which is a rabbit hole you probably do not want to get into with the typical moron who will be asking these questions. But that is the problem. Arguing the historical reasons for firearm ownership are extremely hard to do given the current social and political environment.

Again - with the .50BMG, I think the best course is to make the other person defend their position first. This gives you an opportunity to find out what their thinking is - and then attack that selectively.

For instance:
Anti: .50BMG should be banned. Nobody needs that type of gun.

Defender: why should it be banned? THere have been no crimes committed with .50 firearms and the only thing they are used for in this country are sporting purposes.

Anti: well somebody might - so they should be banned.

Defender: (here is where knowing the other person comes in useful) - well you know I know that you engage in Dungeons and Dragons role playing - and there have been multiple instances of people who do this going off their rocker and killing people - maybe I should use your theory of preventative legislation and get D&D banned - after all - it has been proven to lead to murder, hasn't it?


If you are looking for historical analogies Jews for Preservation of Firearms ownership have a some good stories. The site www.keepandbeararms.com also has some good personal stories of people who came around to understand the logic of gun ownership.

You also have to realize that there are some people you will just never reach - if you run across these people I think your time is better spent just trying to abuse them and make them feel bad, you will never change their mind.

 

[GrendelKhan]

...is the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's also the argument that finally got my father, (Nonexistent God rest his soul) an honest-to-God dyed-in-the-wool radical socialist, to embrace the 2nd Amendment. I just told him that if there was no personal right, then only the FBI would have guns...changed his tune in about 15 minutes, I kid you not.

I think in some ways, your comment here, answers the gist of your original question.

You find yourself (as we all do) in conversations with people who want to limit the 2A or are just outright anti-gun. And in the case of your father, instead of figuring out where the limit that you can both agree on is, you got thru to him by appealing to his concerns. As it turns out, his concerns about a possible future tyrannical government, are exactly the same concerns that I'm guessing you have, that I have, that many here have, and the Founding Fathers had - regardless of him being on the "other side" politically.

So, maybe it's less to do with finding those magical points that no one can deny, and more to do with having a discussion where the other side actually listens. Not always possible, but sometimes...

But to the extent that the "other side" can sense our hostility to them, by calling them socialists or unpatriotic or whatever (whether true or not), as we sometimes do, they will simply not listen to us. If you're trying to convince someone to change their whole perspective, then you gotta speak in a way that they will listen. Know what I mean?

 

[KMM696]

I read what I thought was an excellent post on some of the difficulties arguing the gun issue over on The Anarchangel blog a while ago. I'm reposting it here, because I can't write nearly as well as Chris. I'd had my share of arguments with anti-gunners, and many times I had felt like we were arguing about completely different things. Turns out, we were.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Differing First Principles

The subject of arguing above first principles has recently come up on the NoR forums

Let me just restate my maxim on first principles:

No useful discussion or debate can occur between individuals who have differing first principles on a subject; except as relates to those first principles themselves.

Because higher level arguments are always based on first principles, you need to make sure that all parties in a debate on higher level arguments are proceeding from the same first principle. If the parties to an argument or debate have different first principles, the argument itself cannot be resolved, or even debated.

As an example, this is why it's useless to argue with MOST liberals about gun control in any way.

They are proceeding from the first principle that guns are by their nature bad and/or evil, therefore restrictions on gun ownership are self justified. Their argument from this first principle on gun control, is that the only people who should have guns are the ones that can absolutely prove that they NEED them.

Our first principle is that guns are a useful tool, and an interesting work of engineering and the machinists art. Additionally our larger first principle is that arms are necessary to freedom, because the government that does not fear it's citizens, will ALWAYS result in tyranny.

Thus, our argument on gun control is also self justified, in that only those restrictions on ownership absolutely necessary (and some believe in NO restriciton at all) should be allowed.

At that point it should be obvious that these two higher level positions cannot be argued usefully


Chris Byrne at 11/08/2005 12:40:00 PM

I believe that's why the "explain to me why I don't need it" argument works so well. Instead of debating details, it forces a regression back to those differing first principles.

Made sense to me, anyway....

 

[calsdad]

There have been some interesting and thoughtful responses to this question so far. Rather than restating what others have said using slightly different words, I'd like to throw in some thoughts from an economist's perspective. Part of the original question asked why someone "needed" a particular firearm. It's useful to note that there really is no objective meaning of the word "need". Someone who claims that they "need" something is simply saying that they really want it, and will do pretty much anything to get it. Likewise, someone who questions why someone "needs" something is almost always expressing their emotional opposition to that persons ability to have it. Do you really need water? In a lot of places people get up in the morning and walk for a hour or so to get to the nearest source of water, then carry what they and their families need for the day back with them. Obviously nobody really needs (in the sense that they can't live without) any firearm, car, truck, or almost anything else the average person might mention, since people lived for tens of thousands of years before those things even existed.

In the same way, categorizing things as "necessities" or "luxuries" is a similar attempt to impose one's subjective opinions of how important something is, or whether other people should have them, under the guise of a supposedly objective distinction. Almost everything that we have today would be considered luxuries in some other parts of the world or in previous times. The only really meaningful questions don't involve whether or how badly someone needs something but, presuming that they want it, how much they're willing to give up in order to get it. If they're willing to pay what it actually costs, then from a libertarian or free-market point of view, there should be nothing to prevent them from getting it. If they're unwilling or unable to pay what it costs, then they're simply out of luck, unless some kindly person freely chooses to pay for it himself and give it to them. Would-be philanthropists should note, however, that giving someone enough money to purchase something, and them letting them decide for themselves whether they really want to buy it, will always make them better off for the same expenditure that could be done by simply giving them the item. Those that choose not to go this route are saying that they're willing to be charitable as long as they get to control the recipients' lives to some degree.

Ken

I think that there are some things that can be classified as absolutely essential to life. Water, food, and sleep would fall into this category. Shelter - and a means of self defense would fall just slightly lower on the scale of absolute "needs". If I do not have water, food, or sleep - I WILL die in relatively short order. Depending on where I live (let's say a warm environment with nice weather) - I could potentially live my entire life without shelter. If I am not threatened - then having a means of self defense is not an absolute need - I will not die without it. But as soon as you put a person in an inhospitable environment - or put them in a situation where they are threatened with bodily harm - shelter and a means of self defense DO become absolute needs.

The fuzzy part is where you try to determine what your need is as far as shelter - and weaponry. In my mind - when the govt. has infantry soldiers who are armed with carbines and battle rifles - the ownership of battle rifles and carbines is absolutely a "need" on the part of civilians. I believe this is what the 2nd amendment spelled out. Our founding fathers presumed distrust of government that will run amuck - just as sure as sooner or later it will rain out. Ownership of .50BMG as a need? Well - once you make the presumption that the people need to have the methods to resist govt. that has run amuck - and you accept that said civilians will have to operate on a modern battlefield against similarly equipped govt. troops - then semi-auto and full auto rifles become a "need". As do .50BMG, 20mm and other larger caliber rifles. Machine guns also.

The problem with anti gun people is that they refuse to accept the original premise behind the founding of this country and the documents that used to define it: that govt. cannot be trusted - and that power must be shared, dispersed, and counter-balanced. Otherwise bad things will happen. They typically presume no dishonest intentions on the part of any person - and blame external factors and inanimate objects for anything bad that happens.

To boil it down: I think anything that comes between you and death - is an absolute need. Food, water, sleep, all fit this category. You absolutely will die without them. In a world filled with those out to kill you - and who are armed with something - you also need that something - whatever it is. If your enemies are armed with sticks and stones - a firearm is a want, not a need. If your enemy has firearms - they absolutely become a need.

 

[calsdad]

I read what I thought was an excellent post on some of the difficulties arguing the gun issue over on The Anarchangel blog a while ago. I'm reposting it here, because I can't write nearly as well as Chris. I'd had my share of arguments with anti-gunners, and many times I had felt like we were arguing about completely different things. Turns out, we were.



I believe that's why the "explain to me why I don't need it" argument works so well. Instead of debating details, it forces a regression back to those differing first principles.

Made sense to me, anyway....

Thanks - that is a good article.

He explained something that I had maybe sensed all along - but not been able to elaborate on.

As was said above: this is why you need to go back to asking: "why shouldn't I have access to firearms?" And probably also why I have intuitively resorted to attacks on anti gunners basic positions by attempting to show the insanity of them when given the chance.

If I can send somebody away mad by attacking their logic - I have attacked their first principles. People typically hate this - especially when they have a sense they are wrong.

 

[Starvin]

good logic calsdad.

Why do I feel the "need" for an AR as opposed to a 10/22 for instance?

Well, why might one feel the "need" for a Gore-Tex NorthFace Parka vs. a jacket from Wal-Mart?

It's an essential piece of equipment. Why wouldnt one want the best type of equipment available?

 

[calsdad]

I used to believe in reasonable restrictions, I couldn't see why anybody "needed" certain types of firearms. I couldn't see what the harm was in waiting periods or permitting. Then I grew up. I saw the restrictions for what they truly are, incremental steps towards banning everything. I actually read the Constitution and began to develop a mind set of what I think the founders of this country were thinking. I now feel that I should be able to park an Abrams tank in my driveway with a full tank of diesel and a 120 mm round in the pipe, and nobody should be able to say boo about it. That was, and should have remained the point of the RTKBA.
The ability to defend ourselves from tyranny is virtually lost, the founders of this country devised such a great system that it lulled the populous into a false sense that our system is infallible, and tyranny cannot exist here. This makes it extremely difficult to convince most folks that the need for protection from government exists. I wish I had some argument to strengthen your case, but alas I am in the same boat, banging my head on the same wall. If basic logic doesn't work, I can't think of anything else that will.
-Rick

The lulling into a false sense of security is one of the reasons why I think George Bush should have been used as a tool to help push the cause of gun ownership.

Liberal: I think guns should be outlawed. Only the government should have guns.

Gun Owner: I hope you realize that what you are saying is that guns should be outlawed - therefore only George Bush should have guns.

Liberal: (crickets)........

 

[calsdad]

Here is another argument point that I have seen somewhere.


Liberal: You should not be able to own those guns. I think they should be taken away from you.

Civilian gun owner: Well I already have the guns. How exactly are you going to take them away?

Liberal: We will pass laws. Your right to own them will be taken away.

Civilian gun owner: Well, it is just for those reasons that I own guns in the first place - in case somebody or some power tries to take away my rights. That is the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. So let me ask you a question - what if I don't turn them in?

Liberal: The government will come and get them, you will be forced to turn them in.

Civilian gun owner: Ah - now we are getting somewhere. So you are an advocate of govt. coercion and wish to take my rights away - even though I have done nothing - by force.

Liberal: Umm - yeah

Civilian gun owner: I'll tell you what. Why dont YOU come take my guns away. Why send somebody else to do your work for you?

Liberal: because that is what the govt. is for.

Civilian gun owner: So lets say you wimp out - and the govt. actually shows up to take my guns - and all the other gun owners guns away. Let's also presume that there is violence - and that gun owners WIN. - Please remember - there are something like 250 million guns in the US, so any contest like this is NOT a sure thing. What are YOU going to do then? Your designated hitter has struck out. And the people whom you sent that designated hitter to attack - are now most likely your sworn enemy. Also remember that by taking this action you have fomented bloodshed - so you now have immoral actions and murder on your hands.

What exactly are you going to do now?

I don't think you have really thought this thru too much.

Liberal: (crickets)..........

 

[calsdad]

good logic calsdad.

Why do I feel the "need" for an AR as opposed to a 10/22 for instance?

Well, why might one feel the "need" for a Gore-Tex NorthFace Parka vs. a jacket from Wal-Mart?

It's an essential piece of equipment. Why wouldnt one want the best type of equipment available?

I think once you have established that there is a need - you can also say that there are certain parameters to that need.

For instance you can say that food is a need - but you cannot blindly say that anything in the world is food for a human. There are parameters. You cannot simply give a human being eucalyptus leaves for their entire lives and expect them to survive - even though a koala might. You cannot sit a human down at a volcanic vent on the bottom of the ocean and expect him to filter his food out of the water - even though some of those tube sponges can.
There are always parameters to the need.

If the need for a weapon is established - and the weapon that is "needed" is a slingshot - you cannot simply justify the need for a "rock" by giving somebody a boulder - or a grain of sand. There is a parameter to the need.

A 10/22 will not suffice - when the enemy you are facing is armed with AR's and AK's - there is once again - a parameter, or parameters that must be met to justify the need.

 

[Gabe]

...I'd like to have something better than "You can never trust government to be benign" which has always been my default argument against gun control...

This is a good default because it is the heart of the matter. Guns, gun control, etc., are about one thing: Government. People have all kinds of opinions on the issue - whatever the issue is - but the fundamental error most of us make is linking our opinions to Government execution of those opinions. You probably cannot change their opinion about guns and gun control, but I would try to change their unnecessary linking of it with Government.

...I honestly believe that the facts are on our side. That the history of tyranny is so rampant that no government, even ours, can ever be trusted with absolute, un-rivaled power....

This is your ace in the hole. The facts are on your side. You have no doubt about it. The way to get people to think correctly is to teach them to believe correctly; then they will think correctly also. The brain is nothing but a logic machine, and when you feed it facts instead of lies, it will figure out for itself the right opinion.

Avoid talking about guns at all if the issue is too heated. Point out other examples of Government being bad - which is its native habit. Everyone has some sort of problem with Government; tap into that problem with your listener. I know people who got burned by the passage of Prop 8 in California - obviously they are of the liberal persuasion. But we have a common enemy; Government running wild with unfair and illegitimate power to control us. The same thing Government does with guns, it does with other things that even the most liberal people find oppressive. Use it to break the link they have in their minds about good ideas and Government execution going together. Good ideas don't need Government - only bad ones do.

 

[doobie]

I can sum up my beliefs on the 2nd in two words: No Restrictions.

Wrong wording: Shall Not Be Infringed.

Emphasise mine.

 

[z0mbi]

On Feb. 20, 1788, Tench Coxe wrote:

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."


In Federalist Paper No.28, Hamilton writes:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

I also recall, I believe it was in the Federalist Papers, someone saying that the second amendment ensures that the people will have the same arms as a modern army. I wish I could find the quote... for this is what I believe. Each citizen is a foot soldier, and should be allowed to equip himself the equal of any other modern footsolider in a modern military. I believe this solves the 'WMD' problem, but also draws a gray line as to what types of modern military arms a citizen should be allowed to posses... items in the grey area of course being crew served weapons.

 

[calsdad]

The same thing Government does with guns, it does with other things that even the most liberal people find oppressive. Use it to break the link they have in their minds about good ideas and Government execution going together. Good ideas don't need Government - only bad ones do.

I like that.
For somebody who is extremely ignorant though it probably won't work. Then again - an argument with an ignorant person is a waste of time anyway.

 

[MasterShinken]

I look at guns like I would knives. How many knives (steak knife, butcher knife, sushi knife, ect) do you have in your home.

Knives were orginaly used as weapons and are still realy good weapons. you can easily injure/kill someone with a steak knife. so with this, knives are dangerous, but you need knives for your food so they must still be used and exist, so why dont we place a limit to how many steak knives you can have. you realy only need one steak knife per person in your house, so they place a common sence limit, cause realy, who needs more than one steak knife, you can easily wash the one you have after use, helping the sanitation of your overall house. if friends come over for dinner, we have approved carry containers, that will allow them to safely bring their utensil's over to your place.

on that note, why would you ever need a chef knife, or a paring knife, you can easily accomplish all tasks that require a sharpened blade, with one steak knife, all other cooking knives will be banned, because realy, why do you need them, a knife is a knife rite...

as a man that LOVES to cook, I have TONS of knives, because I know that each one lends itself to a different purpose's and makes my life easier. but to a person that doesn't cook much, this could seem a lot like 'common sense'

 

[calsdad]

I also recall, I believe it was in the Federalist Papers, someone saying that the second amendment ensures that the people will have the same arms as a modern army. I wish I could find the quote... for this is what I believe. Each citizen is a foot soldier, and should be allowed to equip himself the equal of any other modern footsolider in a modern military. I believe this solves the 'WMD' problem, but also draws a gray line as to what types of modern military arms a citizen should be allowed to posses... items in the grey area of course being crew served weapons.

I believe that has been spelled out somewhere - I can't remember where either.

The "nuclear weapon" and "WMD" argument is a pretty easy one to shoot down I believe. One way you could in fact get your "nose under the tent" so to speak with a liberal - is to say that you are opposed to even governments owning nuclear weapons and/or WMD. Seeing as how neither one of these weapons have any real legitimate use on the battlefield except as agents of massive destruction their role as defense weapons can be called seriously into question. In the posession of a nation - maybe. In the posession of an individual? I don't see any way that nuclear or WMD weapons can be argued to be defensive. And this is one of the major delimiters as to what type of weapons should legitimately be owned by an individual or a militia. Even tanks - are tanks defensive or offensive weapons? If you operated under the assumption that a tank is mobile - and therefore can be used in offensive operations (in fact if you look at warfare you see tanks used most often in the offense) - then a tank is not a proper militia weapon either. The substitute for a tank is a defensive emplacements, forts, etc. Since by their non-movable nature they are inherently DEFENSIVE and impossible to use on the offense.

In my mind you can defuse some of these stupid "if we allow guns we will have to allow nuclear weapons" arguments by pointing out the true difference between offensive and purely defensive weaponry and armament. You could potentially make the person arguing that corollation look like an idiot with the proper response.

 

[Skald]

I am always asked why I support the 2nd Amendment the way I do.

I tell them its because I also value my other rights under the U.S Constitution. That once the Government has a monopoly of violence they CAN and WILL dictate what rights you do and do not have. Look at what happens in countries that the Gov't then realizes they can run roughshod over their citizens WITHOUT ANY FEAR. I point out Britain and a lot of the crazy crap they are passing without any real fear of revolt.

I get people who still are blind to the truth, but every once in a while you wake a person up because something in a 'Democratic' country sounds something more akin to a Tyrannical country (example the whole searching computers without a warrant).

And if I am really feeling like a bastard I tell them the quote "I have the Army and I will do what I want."

When they asked who said it I just say 'Andrew Jackson, as the 7th President of the United States, in response to the United States Supreme Court ruling saying the forceful removal of Indians from the Southeast to Oklahoma was illegal, and to stop the removal which is widely known as the "Trail of Tears".

 

[TomH]

Wrong wording: Shall Not Be Infringed.

Emphasise mine.

People will forever argue what constitutes infringement. A restriction is a restriction. I should have also said no registration, hoops to jump through, forms to fill out, etc.

 

[Kalahari]

I don't believe ordnance, explosives, tanks, and so on count as "firearms." That's where I draw the line. You aren't guaranteed the right to a tank, sorry. A tank isn't a firearm, and neither is a Howitzer.

 

[Skald]

I don't believe ordnance, explosives, tanks, and so on count as "firearms." That's where I draw the line. You aren't guaranteed the right to a tank, sorry. A tank isn't a firearm, and neither is a Howitzer.

Exactly, items such as Field Guns and other heavier weapons were actually referred to as 'Ordnance' and as such, given the wording of the Second Amendment, be banned by the Federal Government. Arms, as defined in the 1700's and such, referred to rifles, pistols and such, and as such are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[z0mbi]

I don't believe ordnance, explosives, tanks, and so on count as "firearms." That's where I draw the line. You aren't guaranteed the right to a tank, sorry. A tank isn't a firearm, and neither is a Howitzer.

It doesn't mention 'firearms' in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[EddieCoyle]

If you could dig up and reanimate say... Jefferson, and ask him the intent of the 2nd, he would tell you that it was to ensure that the people had exactly the same military capability as the state.

He would also be totally into that Beyoncé video I posted the other night.

 

[Kalahari]

It says "arms," which is what it meant back then. And having read many primary-source documents and the like, I've never seen anything Jefferson said that remotely made that point. I find that very difficult to believe.

Can you point to a link?

 

[Skald]

If you could dig up and reanimate say... Jefferson, and ask him the intent of the 2nd, he would tell you that it was to ensure that the people had exactly the same military capability as the state.

He would also be totally into that Beyoncé video I posted the other night.

I would have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case they would have worded it as "the right to bear arms AND ordnance". As posted cannons and artillery were NOT considered OR referred to as arms at that time.

 

[clinotus]

It says "arms," which is what it meant back then. And having read many primary-source documents and the like, I've never seen anything Jefferson said that remotely made that point. I find that very difficult to believe.

Can you point to a link?

There isn't a link, other than period language. Arms are the same coat of arms which were the general provisions that a soldier would carry on their persons such as a pistols, swords, and rifles. People however, unless hunting, carried their arms about them in holsters or within their coats while soldiers carried them draped about their persons.

One could argue the wording is more supportive of concealed carry rather than militia carry, though later states like Pennsylvania used the wording to further the declaration stating that the right was for common defense of the state as well, which would have allowed one to carry or bear the same implements of offense that a soldier would use.

Skald explained it best above.

 

[FunYun]

I would have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case they would have worded it as "the right to bear arms AND ordnance". As posted cannons and artillery were NOT considered OR referred to as arms at that time.

Ahhhh, No

From the Heller decision

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 defence.” 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 of 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.

I most certainly use a tank to 'cast' twards another a large projectile while protecting myself.

All weapons by definition are 'offensive', they can be used in a defensive or offensive manor. To initiate attack, or defend. Can you not see that you need an equally powerful weapon to resist an equally powerful attack?

 

[z0mbi]

However, you cannot 'take up' a tank in your 'hands'. I need to find that Federalist papers quote where someone described the 2nd as ensuring that every citizen was capable of being the equal of a footsoldier... not a tank commander or an artilleryman, but your common soldier in a modern army. I would interpret that as meaning anything that any one person can carry and operate by himself, and I would also extend it (personally) to infantry portable crew served weapons. IE: 2-3 man machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank guns or whatever, but not 155mm howitzers.

Just as tanks are useless in the mountains of Afghanistan and the streets of Iraq, I think tanks would be useless against a US citizen militia uprising armed with Javelins, Stingers, and RPGs.

He would also be totally into that Beyoncé video I posted the other night.

Yeah, him and Franklin would be all over that.

 

[Skald]

Ahhhh, No

The key phrase from the decision is "We interpret". You can interpret it ANY way you wish, but in the 18th Century firearms such as pistols and rifles were referred to as arms. Ordnance referred to things as artillery and the like.

My argument was not based at all on what Scalia thinks it means but rather on the common definition of the word 'arms' in 18th Century America.

And in the definition provided, from a legal dictionary no less that arms is defined 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.”

 

[Ripach]

I don't believe ordnance, explosives, tanks, and so on count as "firearms." That's where I draw the line. You aren't guaranteed the right to a tank, sorry. A tank isn't a firearm, and neither is a Howitzer.

Exactly, items such as Field Guns and other heavier weapons were actually referred to as 'Ordnance' and as such, given the wording of the Second Amendment, be banned by the Federal Government. Arms, as defined in the 1700's and such, referred to rifles, pistols and such, and as such are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I disagree, numerous private citizens in this country just after the revolution owned Cannons, which was the equivalent of modern artillery or tanks. In fact you will find no law from that period outlawing any type of projectile or explosive, which leads me to believe the founders of this country were fine with it.

 

[Eye5600]

The state has a number of interests.

1) that the gun owner is a responsible citizen, therefore no guns for felons, druggies, etc.

2) that the gun owner knows what he/she is doing, therefore mandatory training in certain cases

3) that the weapon is so powerful that it should not be under the sole control of an individual, therefore there must be a line somewhere between a BB gun and tank.

Personally, I think it should be a state matter, since the interests of, e.g. Rhode Island are different from the interests of Alaska.

Two thoughts from political reality. 1) No government is going to extend the right of gun ownership to a group that is essentially in rebellion. 2) In the long run, in the USA, the gun laws are going to be what the majority of citizens want, regardless of the 2nd Amendment. Political action within the system can be very effective as the NRA has proven. Defiance of the government out of the system is a dead (literally, in many cases) end.

 

[Ripach]

Two thoughts from political reality. 1) No government is going to extend the right of gun ownership to a group that is essentially in rebellion. 2) In the long run, in the USA, the gun laws are going to be what the majority of citizens want, regardless of the 2nd Amendment. Political action within the system can be very effective as the NRA has proven. Defiance of the government out of the system is a dead (literally, in many cases) end.

This (the highlighted portion) is as about as far from reality as one can get. Recent polls show that a majority of voters in this country are at a minimum fine with the current laws. Still each year we face a battle with politicians looking for tighter restrictions. If your statement were true there would be no worry for us when restrictions were suggested because we know the majority of constituents are not in favor of the change, but that is not the case. We must worry about the influence of special interest groups, about politicians determined to tow the party line, and even worse about those elected officials who feel they know netter then those who voted for them. I agree that current law outweighs the actual intent of the amendment and that will most likely never change, however the will of the people means very little in today's America.