Confusion about the meaning of the word ''ARMS''

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
No, I am not taliking about those things at the side of your body:)

Granted this is a firearms forum, so guns are the big topic, but I find it disturbing that some folks do not understand the meaning of the word ''ARMS'' as it pertains to the 2A. The 2A does not limit ''arms'' to being just guns. It means anything that can be a weapon.

We have been legislated out of carrying all kinds of weapons and have been legislated out the ability to own weapons that (even to lots of folks here) are seen as ''exceptionally dangerous''.

If the military and police can have it then we are supposed to be able to have it provided we have a fat enough wallet. We are not supposed to be limited to what LEO and military may use either. Example: if you so choose, you should feel free to strap on your short sword and not face a bunch of cops with their guns drawn for having an ''illegal'' weapon. I notice no one gives old ladys with big sticks any trouble about having a weapon.

My flame suit is on and I am big boy with a tough skin so have it. I expect the usual people to attack me. You know who you are.
 
+1. As a student carrying weapons on campus is a no-no but it's ok for a 4" folder or autoknife in my pocket. I would rather carry my Glock 78 or a K-bar but not having it concealed freaks out the city slickers and it's illegal to have one concealed. (I asked around earlier and posted the CCW laws for blades and ppl said it was ok if I got a CCW permit. Still a little confused on that one.) It would be even better it I could conceal a push knife in my pocket but I think it falls under the "dirk" category.

One subject that's a little touchy: grenades and other HE devices. Anything with a blast radius that protrudes onto your neighbors property probably should be regulated, so MOAB's are probably out of the question. :p I think stingers, CS grenades and flashbangs should be proper staple of the average paranoid commie killer. :rolleyes:
 
The original poster is right on.

Furthermore, the confusion about the meaning of "arms" in the 2nd amendment is 100% manufactured. There's nothing to be confused about unless you're attempting to reconcile that word while at the same time accepting a controlled society where the individual is neither sovereign nor is he truly allowed to own property.

From a legal perspective, to preserve the original intent of the 2nd amendment while dealing with certain arms that ought to be tightly controlled by the several states (i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical) there ought to be a specific amendment to the constitution granting states this authority because legally and truthfully, at present they don't have the constitutional authority to limit a citizen's ownership of those items. This of course would only matter if the constitution were still fully in force, which it clearly is not. Since the federal "government" has been brazenly ignoring the wording and intent of the constitution since 1933, our first job has got to be to restore rule of the constitution BEFORE we can even dream of doing housekeeping such as giving states the authority to tightly regulate nuke/bio/chem.
 
The funny thing is that so many people have a problem with private citizens owning explosives, but see nothing wrong with the government having them. This position makes the assumption that 1,000 people collectively have a right that 1 person does not.
 
No need for flame suit.

"Arms", "keep" and "bear" are terms of art in philosophy and law related to self-defense predating the broad use of firearms and 2A. Majority opinion of Parker v. DC gets into this, IIRC, and it is one factor changing the opinion of a number of otherwise liberal scholars (not ideologues, but real scholars) to side with the individual right view.

Further, it confirms 2A for what it is, a statement about the inalienable human right of effective self-defense. When firearms are obsolete, 2A will be no less vital to the individual and freedom than it is today, or was before it was writ.

Keep spreading the word....

Being anti-gun is easy compared to being anti-sef-defense!
 
They should make a T-shirt of a guy holding a gun in a shirt with no sleeves and the caption below saying "right to bare arms".

Or, maybe a red-neck holding a couple or arms off of a big black bear (armless bear in the background) and the caption below saying "right to bear arms"

Or, some other play on words to tick off the libs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top