Exactly what arms DOES the 2nd protect...? (Warning, LONG)

[Jedi Oomodo]

Wasn't sure if this belonged in Legal, as it involves interpreting the 2nd Amendment, or here, as Legal seems to pertain more to current legislation...Anyways...

After reading ACLU's position on the 2nd, HCI, several pro-gun essays on the Net (2 of which are in TFLs library), Supreme Court cases, legal opinions, etc. I am left with this question- What arms are referred to in the 2nd? Just personal small arms? Just weapons suited for military use (A well regulated militia, et al.)? Or, does it mean that, if we have the means, we can own such weapons as Bradley fighting vehicles, F-16s, and the like?

Consider for a moment the fact that during the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, America commissioned citizens who owned ships to outfit them for war and conduct military operations against the English. These ships were called Privateers. It would seem to me that the Founders had no problem with privately owned military acoutrements, given their idea that the citizens are also soldiers. I also understand that States are Constitutionally prohibited from owning and maintaining "ships of war...without permission of Congress". BUT, if the 2nd is an individual right, as I believe it is, then that would lead me to conclude that I could buy a Bradley if I wanted one, whereas Texas would have to get permission from Congress.

ACLU thinks that the 2nd does NOT allow us to own such things, but then again, they think it only allows STATES to own guns anyway. I read an essay yesterday that pretty much tore up their assertion that it's a States right. ACLU and other anti-gun literature I read stated something to the effect that "gun owners agree that the 2nd does not give them the right to own missiles...". At this time, I'm not so sure, myself, that it doesn't.
My reasoning is that the 2nd merely says "keep and bear arms". It doesn't refer to a class of protected arms (i.e. our popular assertion that the 2nd isn't about hunting or sporting), it just says "arms". Therefore, do we as citizens also need to assert that "it ain't about man-portable arms, either"?

So, this is my question to y'all- Do you think that the 2nd protects our right to possess any weapon we have the means to acquire, or only limited types of firearms? Be careful if you assert that it only protects a limited type... that opens the door for liberals to say "See, you agree with us, you only need guns for hunting!!" Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

------------------
--------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo

If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!




[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited August 11, 1999).]

 

[DC]

Yeah, this does belong in legal, and I will move it over there after I post.

The 2nd Amendment acknowledges and restricts the government from infringing on the citizen's inherent right to bear arms. Period. It is a restriction upon the government; the government can not and has no right or authority to prevent citizens from owning, possessing and bearing arms

There are no distinctions as to what kind of arms....so any arguement to the contrary is absolutely specious. Arms were arms and the Founders meant the same exact arms that contemporary militaries had.
"The Founders didn't mean machine guns, they didn't mean nukes, they didn't mean this or that" is pure garbage. They meant what they wrote and they meant any arms.
Look...You can't come around 200 yrs later and say what they really meant or if they knew of this they'd restrict that. They were educated and intelligent men and they would have said no bombs, no weapons of great fire, no weapons capable of killing scores of people. That was possible then just as it is now. They didn't include those restrictions because they didn't wish to. The language is clear simple and understandable. They intended the citizenry to be as strong as the government's military. Period.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[BLITZKRIEG]

I agree with you up until we start talking about weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, chemical/biological weapons) other than that I think the 2nd is meant to have the same weapons as the military. With that said I feel I might have been brainwashed by the media or whatever beacuse I would have a problem with people having these weapons bcause normal people couldnt afford them and a terrorist organization could get enough members to afford one. But then a gain a militia (media definition of militia) could also get the money together to get one. Oh well I just have a gut feeling that it wouldnt be a good idea but Im not sure why.