What does Bare Arms really mean?

Originally posted by Johnze
reply to post by Danbones

 

You mean, it was never intended for people to stock pile M16s for wandering into you local coffe shop??? and getting all confused by the fact everyone is basicaly freaking out?????

historical context?!?!

WHATS THAT?????

I'm not sure about in the US, but in Canada, if one wanted to engage the Agents of the Crown, (or the police) to solve a crime, or to stand against tyranny, the most like place to find them is at Tim Horton's, the local donut hole ( coffee shop).
as to the dictioary approach:

"A tabard or surcoat blazoned with bearings. An arrangement of bearings,"

www.answers.com...
coat of arms there that should make it clear to all

as to the definition of the word arms and the confusion regarding same:

How to Increase Definition in Arms
Your arms are likely the first and sometimes only muscle that people will notice about you. Usually it's the only muscle group that is exposed and readily seen by others. That's why it's so important to be happy with the way your arms look. Even though your biceps and triceps might be very strong, it's highly possible that you still don't have that definition in your arms that you really want.

www.ehow.com...

A good reason for the stock pile aspect is that for a unified stand against tyranny everyone would have to be armed, and redundancy helps compensate for wear and tear, and damage to the equipment.
An ability to use varied ammo might also be found in a variety of impact applicators as well.

My thoughts:
Take out the electronic voting machines, force the vote to paper, and honor guard the elected patriots against accidental sabotage.
failing that...

One massive and total sit down strike spread out so that the constabulary can't focus on the group. Everyone gets a camera.
The cops are exibiting a bigger fear of cameras then guns these days



[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Danbones]

Ultimately the fact that we are now having any discussions regarding the true meaning and intent of our constitution shows that we have failed.



"A republic, if you can keep it," responded, Benjamin Franklin



Since our nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government.



The intent and meaning should have been know by all and that understanding should have been past to future generations as common knowledge. We failed, and rather quickly the way I see it.

Originally posted by ANNED

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed."

You must remember that the definitions in this are the definitions of 1776.
A well regulated Militia= the US did not have a standing army/ this is the British term for a local force that defended towns and the colonies from outlaws, Indians, Coup d'état, the french, and the spanish,

The right of the people to keep and bare Arms= the founders wanted a armed(and skilled) people to form Militia units as needed without the need to have a large standing army and to be able to call up a Militia fast before what standing army the US had could ride to the the site of a attack.

ORIGINS OF THE MILITIA AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS

The Glorious Revolution created the right to keep arms in reaction to James II's policy of neglecting the militia in favor of his army and of disarming the Anglican opponents of his rule. First enunciated in the Declaration of Rights and embodied in the statutory Bill of Rights in 1689, the right to keep arms grew out of the long-standing English concern for protecting the sanctity of property from the arbitrary power of the crown. It also arose from a commitment to the traditional and constitutional forces of the counties, whether in their mode as posse comitatus, as Trained Bands, or as Militia. The ideology of militia and arms, derived from the writings of the Classical Republicans, synthesized by James Harrington, and modified by the "Country" opponents of the "Court" faction in the 1670s and 1680s, provided additional influence for establishing the right to keep arms. These political and ideological activities had an additional significance. They affected the institutional, constitutional, and political concepts and practices of American colonies and revolutionaries in the following century, providing the starting point and partial justification for the creation of the right to bear arms in 1776 and 1789.
ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

The right to bear arms— the classical Jus Militiae or right to serve in the army— grew out of the constitutional right to keep arms, the right of self-preservation, and the common law obligation of military and law enforcement service, all in the context of the American Revolution. Thoroughly indoctrinated with the principles of Country ideology and of Natural Rights philosophy, Americans looked to the colonial militia and posse comitatus to provide them with the means of opposing the British army after the occupation of Boston in 1765. When Parliament condemned such measures taken by Bostonians, Patriot reiterated the constitutional right to keep arms. When active military resistance became necessary after 1774, Patriots abandoned the old institutions in favor of a "new militia" of volunteers. When King and Parliament in turn condemned these measures as treasonous, Patriots incorporated the Jus Militiae into their state bills of rights in 1776 as either the right of militia or the right to bear arms, in justification of their revolutionary actions. During the war, the ideological concept of the citizen soldier lost its exclusive identification with the militia: the militia had failed as an effective operational device, compulsory service had been reimposed, and the idea of a citizen army had begun to take shape. The development of this opposing theory had its culmination in the Federal Constitution of 1787 which provided [215] nationalists with the potential to reform the militia into a modernized reserve force and auxiliary to the army. The Antifederalists opponents of consolidated governmental and military power demanded a guarantee in a federal bill of rights of Jus Militiae against potential despotism by the federal "standing army," the ancient nemesis of militia and free government. They got recognition of this right of militia and of arms and arms bearing in the Second Amendment, proposed formally in Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791.

www.potowmack.org...

James Madison went even further in the Federalist Papers making the point that with the 2nd any group of citizens could muster under a leader of their picking, be it ten men of one hundred, without any prior structure, to resist danger of any kind not just a federal army gone mad but any home grown local group that may come up to rape the countryside.

Originally posted by VAPatriot
Ultimately the fact that we are now having any discussions regarding the true meaning and intent of our constitution shows that we have failed.



"A republic, if you can keep it," responded, Benjamin Franklin



Since our nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government.

Many if not most of the folks alive around 1780 would thing our current afflictions.... a state of maddness.

reply to post by Logarock


I always wonder just where we are in this, clearly we are both apathetic and depended now.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Unverified.

reply to post by VAPatriot

Ultimately the fact that we are now having any discussions regarding the true meaning and intent of our constitution shows that we have failed.

Very True. Most of us who attended public school before the mid '70s were taught in a class called "civics". I remember how boring it seemed to be. Little did I know how important that knowledge would become.

Now "civics" has been replaced with an agenda driven social engineering platform called "social studies". No wonder .....

Civics is the study of rights and duties of citizenship. In other words, it is the study of government with attention to the role of citizens ― as opposed to external factors ― in the operation and oversight of government.

Source Wikipedia

[edit on 19-8-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by VAPatriot

 

Now "civics" has been replaced with an agenda driven social engineering platform called "social studies". No wonder .....

And there you have it.

Being a product of the 70's I remember civics class also. My children had social studies class. This was a huge source of contention for me and my childrens school system.

We as parents need to be mindful of what our children are being taught in school. We need to teach our children and not depend on the schools. They have an agenda that I don't support. My kids know the difference.

What it really means is it is Right to Barely have Arms.

LACK of or lacking -bare

Distitute
Naked- suggest absence of protective or ornamental covering, imply a state of nature, of distitution or of defenselessness.

unfurnished or scantily supplied, having nothing left over.

They can occult meanings with word magic and symbolisms from most of you. But they cannot hide from us. For the rulers of darkness are truly bare before our eyes.

You humans hang tight--we are on the way.
Revelations 11:11

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
So I happened to be watching a docu on the waco incident. At some point it showed pictures from teh scene and said "And just as his flock accepted his sexual doctrine, they accepted his order to stockpile illegal weapons..."

This got me thinking... What could be construed as an illegal weapon under the US Bill of rights. I thought, perhaps a stockpile would be ruled out...

So when I thought about the US Citizens guaranteed right "to bare arms", I considered "well what does that really mean?"

Well here is are the definitions of bare. It appears to me that this is meant as a verb, not an adjective. So with that in mind, which of the following definitions do you believe best describes the definition of bare as it is found in the Bill of Rights.

I.



bare
/beə(r)/

verb 1

lay bare • bare your breasts • bare your feelings
make public
syn: publicize, publicise, air
lay bare
syn: denude, denudate, strip
adjective

not having a protective covering • a bare blade
syn: unsheathed
lacking its natural or customary covering • a bare hill • bare feet
just barely adequate or within a lower limit • a bare majority
syn: marginal
apart from anything else; without additions or modifications • only the bare facts
syn: mere, simple
lacking a surface finish such as paint • bare wood
syn: unfinished
providing no shelter or sustenance • bare rocky hills
syn: barren, bleak, desolate, stark
having everything extraneous removed including contents • the bare walls • the cupboard was bare
syn: stripped
lacking in amplitude or quantity • a bare livelihood
syn: scanty, spare
lacking embellishment or ornamentation
syn: plain, spare, unembellished, unornamented
completely unclothed • bare bodies
syn: au naturel, naked, nude
1 Usage sample:
They bare the trees.
ORIGIN: Old English bær. Old English barian. Inflected forms.

Personally it almost appears as if the "to make public" is the closest I can find... which doesn't really seem to insinuate that stockpiling in secret is acceptable.

your thoughts?

rights. I thought, perhaps a stockpile would be ruled out...

So when I thought about the US Citizens guaranteed right "to bare arms", I considered "well what does that really mean?"

Well here is are the definitions of bare. It appears to me that this is meant as a verb, not an adjective. So with that in mind, which of the following definitions do you believe best describes the definition of bare as it is found in the Bill of Rights.

It means that you used a grammatical error in your quest for meaning, just like 'marshall law' is confused with 'martial law', or 'their' is confused with 'there'. Patience/patients etc....

If one spends enough time on line, even the best speller becomes affected. Also, many spell check filters are not aware of legitimate words, which adds to the confusion.

What you meant was 'the right to bear arms'


[edit on 19-8-2010 by davidmann]

All those children in Waco were burned up because there were two guns that had barrels a half inch shorter than allowed by law. I hope someday Janet Reno will show a conscience and admit that she gave the order to burn them out. Enforcement of the gun laws was much more of a crime than the breaking of them. I think Airspoon is right, the intent of the law has been lost, but I think our forefathers also wanted to hunt and have bad ass guns to impress the other rednecks with.

it says your right to have on your property and just asimportant (and more directly the correct usage of the word in context) self defense weapons (firearms) on your person "shall not be infringed"

[edit on 19-8-2010 by sremmos]

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Wow. Who would have thought that a less than firm grasp on vocabulary and spelling could lead to confusion over a weapon?

I can just imagine someone brought up on weapons charges for carrying a well displayed uzi around town using the defense of poor vocabulary.

[edit on 18/8/2010 by Chamberf=6]

Imagine the same someone who was caught with the uzi standing there befuddled if the cops said "lay the arms you bear on the ground and put your bare arms up in the air". smoke....fizzle.....pop....lol

What the Second Amendment States is VERY clear, despite what the congress and politicians think.

"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."

Modern Translation: The people have the God Given Right to own and carry a weapon in order to maintain the security of their State, and property, and the Government can't do a damn thing about it.

Which would seem to me that it would be constitutional to strap my .45 on my hip and walk down the street, with my weapon in plain sight. Since I live in Illinois, that is not very likely to happen any time soon. Unfortunately.

This also means that the people in TX, AZ, NM, and CA that live on the border could carry and use their weapons to defend their state and country from any invaders from a foreign land, LEGALLY!!

That opens up a whole new can of worms, huh?

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Ghost of Chewie]

reply to post by VAPatriot


i think you and i are the only two that really care , here is my thought on the infringement of the 2 amendment back before J.E.H the dir of the FBI came to power,and the "G" men there was a point and time wee one could own a Tommy gun a 45 full auto weapon, now in the days of Al Capone, and the vals day mas there seemed to be some head scratching, why do we let them have thees, and so it started,the "G's" were out gunned by the "al's" then comes ww2 but if you were in the serv and was able to bring back, say a mg 42, no problem then in 47 yet an other law was pasted and there went your collectors item unless you paid a fee and today that fee is a FFL.

The right to "bare arms" is not in the constitution, but allows one to wear tank tops or other sleeveless shirts.

The right to "bear arms" is covered by the second amendment.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” ALBERT EINSTEIN

Originally posted by Ghost of Chewie
What the Second Amendment States is VERY clear, despite what the congress and politicians think.

"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."

Modern Translation: The people have the God Given Right to own and carry a weapon in order to maintain the security of their State, and property, and the Government can't do a damn thing about it.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Ghost of Chewie]

I suppose you could translate it another way too. The Bill of Rights guarantees "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, it doesn't say that you'll necessarily attain those goals.

The second amendment seems to have a loop hole. They can limit the sale of guns and say, "you still have the right to own them if you can find them. However, the sale and purchase of certain guns is illegal. So, having the ones we've deemed illegal means that you broke the law in purchasing an illegal item and we can take them away".

It's like the constitution giving you the right to own a time machine.

Originally posted by VAPatriot
reply to post by Logarock

 

I always wonder just where we are in this, clearly we are both apathetic and depended now.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Unverified.

We are at a place were we will have to take adeep breath and understand that there is nowhere left to run and if we had intrusted some to keep watch on our paradise they have sold us out and its paradise no longer.

Originally posted by Mayson
I suppose you could translate it another way too. The Bill of Rights guarantees "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However, it doesn't say that you'll necessarily attain those goals.

The second amendment seems to have a loop hole. They can limit the sale of guns and say, "you still have the right to own them if you can find them. However, the sale and purchase of certain guns is illegal. So, having the ones we've deemed illegal means that you broke the law in purchasing an illegal item and we can take them away".

It's like the constitution giving you the right to own a time machine.

True, but, it not only says that you HAVE the right to "keep" (read own) a weapon, but also to "bear" (read carry) it also, and the Government cannot "infringe upon" (read stop you).

IMO, making laws that prohibit the people from owning a weapon, stating what kind of weapon they can have, capacity, calliber, or the ability to carry in the open, are a blatant infringment.

I do not want to start trouble with anyone, but just want to be able to defend myself, my family, and my property from anyone who would either try to take them from me.