Where does the right to bear arms start and finish?

Now as a Brit I know you guys have the right to bear arms but what actually does constitute an armament does it include chemical/biological/nuclear or is there a limit under the 2nd amendment? as like a lot of people while i try and join in certain threads i'd like to know the upper and lower limits so as not to make an idiot of one self

everyone settle down

guns are big business, and no politician is going to kill gun jobs or take on the NRA in a significant way

go oil your rifles and heck, take one to bed with you

I do not support bear arms.. bears need their arms for climbing, fishing, scratching, whatnot, and soforth!

reply to post by Maxatoria


It was set up as a protection for the people from being taken over by a tyrannical government! Period! Now here is the thing, we are not asking for anti aircraft missles, (like the ones our government supply to Al Queda) or other military armaments that our government uses to kill innocent people in other countries.

We are not asking for any of those things. In reality, we are asking for the government to butt the hell out of our lives and to stop taking away our freedoms and liberties and to stop treating us as if we are criminals when we have not done anything wrong!

Also do you not find the hypocracy in the US government who sells automatic weapons to drug cartels in Mexico, which are then in turn used to kill thousands of innocent civilians hypocracy to the tenth power??? You do realize that it is illegal in Mexico for citizens to own firearms don't you? But yet the US government sells automatic weapons to drug dealers and so far not one of our officials have been arrested for it!!!

Hope that helps!

It was written in regard to 'arms' at the time...individually carried projectile firing weapons and swords.

Protection, hunting, and gentleman's sport.

Right to bear arms

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. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The 2nd Amendment, although not precisely defined, usually applies to firearms ie. Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Swords, Knives, etc.
When the 2nd amendment was written, there were no nuclear weapons so they are not covered.
While they did have certain "biological" weapons, these are also not covered by the 2nd.

Arms means exactly what the definition says.

arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun

Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Originally posted by redbarron626
The 2nd Amendment, although not precisely defined, usually applies to firearms ie. Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Swords, Knives, etc.
When the 2nd amendment was written, there were no nuclear weapons so they are not covered.
While they did have certain "biological" weapons, these are also not covered by the 2nd.

edit on 27-12-2012 by redbarron626 because: (no reason given)

No, the 2nd amendment does not make any distinction about what sort of arms. One would interpret that they were referring to the arms used at the time, which would include firearms and cannons. Yes, private individuals kept and used cannons at that time.

The intent of the second amendment is to ensure that citizens can protect themselves from
tyranny in government.

I believe arms should include whatever is necessary for personal protection. I believe shotguns,
pistols, rifles and ammunition was the true intent of the founding fathers when they used the
words "arms."

In so far as I am concerned, private citizens should be allowed to possess and bear any type of rifle,
pistol, or shotgun with any type of magazine, firing configuration, or bullet type that government is
allowed to possess. That would keep in the spirit that of the second amendment.

If local law enforcement possesses assault weapons of any type, then those same weapons should
be available to citizens of the US.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
I do not support bear arms.. bears need their arms for climbing, fishing, scratching, whatnot, and soforth!

But in all seriousness here is the text of the amendment for everyone to see:

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.

Its for maintaining a militia in case we need to defend ourselves from foreign enemies invading AND from domestic enemies from within like an out of control and too big for its britches federal government. Part of maintaining a militia is to have guns to fight with. Also the amendment clearly states that none of this shall be infringed. So banning SOME guns (ex: automatic weapons and assault rifles) but allowing us to have other guns goes against this amendment. Banning even a few guns infringes upon our right to own a gun, because now we can't have that type of gun no matter the reason for.

Originally posted by Lonewulph
It was written in regard to 'arms' at the time...Projectile firing weapons and swords.

Theres no time or period refrence. If this time thing were to be used all the way around we would have to consider that the only freedom of the press would have to be done on old style crank press. The argument is ludacris.

It is not meant to give citizens weapons to fight their country's military. It is meant in case the Gestapo sends you to "relocation camps" which coincidentally, have smokestacks burning ash 24/7... The intended use is right before they ask you to, "Step into ze showa, no puuushingk no shaaavingk."

The intended purpose, you will see in small towns where the community bonds are stronger than official bonds. When a police officer might try and arrest a local and he say, "Wade, get the %$#@ off my lawn. Pull your little Mr. Policeman stunt again and I will whoop your ass at the next Christmas dinner you come to..."

It's one of those things where, a completely obedient, helpless group of people who are being taken advantage of might walk themselves to their demise, but someone armed might stand up and say, "over my dead body."

Personally, I don't believe the US has come anywhere close to "A police state" as many would like to portray on the internet. Rife with inequality sure, unfair and unjust in many cases? Absolutely. Not the point where any use of arms by the citizen is justified. I think many on the net who claim they are fighting for their rights do an injustice unto themselves. For now, the changes in government and rule has all been done by political means. In some cases, corrupt political means.

But it is up to those people who believe in their inherent rights to fight the system by the same method. Until lives are threatened directly, a person defending themselves while exercising their 2nd amendment rights is not justified.

I think this is where the lines get blurry, and the misrepresentation makes gun proponents look like deliverance cast members...

reply to post by redbarron626


You forgot cannons, artillery, and bombs - which were also used in the American Revolution to fight tyranny - and YES those are covered and protected by the second amendment as well.

If the "tyrannical" government has access to certain weapons - so should the citizenry in order to be capable of fighting said tyranny. flame on!

ganjoa

reply to post by Maxatoria


I am working from the premise that your question is rhetorical. If that should be the case, then what argument are you trying to make? Of course it would be absurd to make the case for a private individual to own their very own nuclear warhead. Ownership of a hunting rifle or shotgun can be argued for with some merit. One can, and people do, possess them for hunting and sport and other "legitimate" uses. Assault weapons are kept by collectors, but that is where the line blurs on what is considered "legitimate." To the "responsible" collector they feel it is within their rights as a U.S. citizen to own such weapons. To others, it is unnecessary. Unfortunately the law is either vague or contradictory.

Yet, if you are looking for a true discussion about this, the few U.S. Supreme Court decisions typically limit the discussion to traditional firearms. See United States vs. Miller as an example.

No, the 2nd amendment does not make any distinction about what sort of arms. One would interpret that they were referring to the arms used at the time, which would include firearms and cannons.

reply to post by angrysniper


Hence the statement I made,"although not precisely defined"

What part of not precisely defined do YOU not understand?
Or are you just trying to confuse the OP more?

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Now as a Brit I know you guys have the right to bear arms but what actually does constitute an armament does it include chemical/biological/nuclear or is there a limit under the 2nd amendment? as like a lot of people while i try and join in certain threads i'd like to know the upper and lower limits so as not to make an idiot of one self

edit on 27-12-2012 by Maxatoria because: (no reason given)

If one of the states wanted to get themselves some of these weapons there is nothing in the constitution to technically stop them.

Originally posted by redbarron626

No, the 2nd amendment does not make any distinction about what sort of arms. One would interpret that they were referring to the arms used at the time, which would include firearms and cannons.

reply to post by angrysniper

 

Hence the statement I made,"although not precisely defined"

What part of not precisely defined do YOU not understand?
Or are you just trying to confuse the OP more?

I was responding to you using the phrase 'are not covered.'

reply to post by angrysniper

I was responding to you using the phrase 'are not covered.'

Which I will stand by! Biological weapons are NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment! Put any spin you want to on it but Biological weapons are NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment!

:shk:

Originally posted by boncho


Personally, I don't believe the US has come anywhere close to "A police state" as many would like to portray on the internet. Rife with inequality sure, unfair and unjust in many cases? Absolutely. Not the point where any use of arms by the citizen is justified. I think many on the net who claim they are fighting for their rights do an injustice unto themselves. For now, the changes in government and rule has all been done by political means. In some cases, corrupt political means.

The state does not have to show itself to be a police state in order to justify the 2nd. It is assumed in the bill of rights that all central power naturaly wants and unarmed and silent flock of sheep.

It was NOT precisely defined, thus the arguments. i have afriend who says OK, fine, you have the right to own firearms shooting one bullet at a time, to blunderbusses, but not automatic weapons. he "defines" "arms" in the technology of the times.

Yet there are many revolutionary groups today and in the recent past that have taken advantage of "arms" such as shoulder-fired "stinger" missiles to shoot down helicopters or even airplanes. How else are they going to fight a well-equipped and tyrannical government? With blunderbusses and swords?

Well, if you are on the side of the govrnment, stinger missiles don't count. If you are on the side of the revolutionaries, they do.