question about "arms" in 2nd amendment

Bluetrain:

No doubt you're right that there would be major resistance to mandatory militia duty but I think we would be far better off as a nation if we went back to that model for our primary national defense. If nothing else it would make military adventurism less politically popular.

Personally, I think it's almost inevitable that our financial situation will force major military cuts eventually, either that or a major war to prop things up.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
To nazshooter, I have mentioned useful duties of a real militia several times but even here on this board there doesn't seem to be much interest. However, it is an arguable point as to whether or not it would make the country less likely to engage in foreign adventures, as you put it.

One reason is that the current full integration of the national guard into the overall military picture, as I understand it, was supposed to insure the complete agreement of the citzenry in any major military undertaking. But so far it doesn't seem to bother anyone any more than having females among the casualties. I suspect that the reason is because so relatively few among us actually ever have anything to do with the armed forces anymore, or so I am led to believe. In my own family I served, my son served and my son-in-law is currently serving. I guess we're among the few.

Other countries have, at times, raised military used specifically for home defense. That is, they weren't supposed to be liable for overseas service, although really only a handful of countries ever had overseas colonies. We've had troops stationed overseas for over a hundred years but never in what you would call a colony, unless you count Hawaii.

It is also worth pointing out that required military service such as exists in most countries always meets a certain amount of resistance from those who actually have to go, even including Switzerland, but I suppose that's natural.
 
If the bankruptcy of cities and counties continues, the police forces they have fielded will be decimated. San Bernardino CA is an example.

The militia concept may be the only way for law-abiding citizens to provide for common defense. How that all gets put together and its formality may be very ad hoc or reasonably planned. It is possible that existing police agencies could collaborate in this. More likely, they and politicians will oppose it, for the threat they figure it presents to their authority.

During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles CA, Korean shop owners armed and collaborated to the defend their properties, and those shops survived without being looted or burned. Adjacent, undefended businesses owned by others, including blacks, were looted if not burned. Los Angeles PD was nowhere to be found.
 
BlueTrain said:
While I doubt there were many cannon parked in people's carriage houses during the 1780s and 1790s, it is true there were armed merchantmen (commercial sailing ships) at the time.
Click to expand...
How about prior to 1776?

There was no standing army, other than the British army, prior to the Revolution. And the Founders wanted no part of a standing army after the revolution. So if the cannon were not in the hands (or carriage houses) of "the People," where were they?
 
Some, if not most, were in fortifications. Just how many cannon do you think there were (on land) prior to 1776 in the English speaking colonies? Did George Washington have any? Did George Mason?
 
BlueTrain you may be right in your definition of "Militia" in regard to the what the FF had in mind when they wrote the 2A, but I do not believe an organized, standing army of 'civilians' or professionals, whether commanded by the State or the Feds was the goal. There was certainly much disagreement as to what the Militia was, how it should be organized, supplied and regulated, and even what its purpose was. That debate continues today. What is more clear (at least to me;)) is that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is necessary for a free people. In the context of this discussion, I don't think we have to go far in restricting the arms we're allowed to keep and bear to neuter that.
 
On the one hand, I'm of the belief that 2a covers anything you can arm yourself. On the other hand, things like gas and nukes are so ridiculously indiscriminate as to be uncontrollable in a way. But for everything else, I would point out that if someone can actually afford a tank or helicopter, they probably won't flip out and do crazy things. The same applies to full autos and currently legal large caliber rifles. I'm pretty sure we can agree that one loony with a Barrett 50 could do unheard of damage, yet it doesn't happen - thank god. I don't know, I just prefer the view point that our status as free men and women, able to live how we wish and own what we will is a hell of allot more important than any degree of hypothetical safety.
 
K_Mac said:
BlueTrain you may be right in your definition of "Militia" in regard to the what the FF had in mind when they wrote the 2A, but I do not believe an organized, standing army of 'civilians' or professionals, whether commanded by the State or the Feds was the goal.
Click to expand...
Certainly not a standing army, since the Founders had a deep distrust of standing armies and stated extensively in their writings that they did not want a powerful standing army. Which is why their intent was for the militia to be sufficiently powerful to stand up to and defeat any standing army.

Tench Coxe said:
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Click to expand...

Tench Coxe said:
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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.
Click to expand...

And, finally,

Tench Coxe said:
The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them
Click to expand...
Does that answer the question of whether the Founders wanted the militia to armed as well as (or better than) the army? This IS what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Does that answer the question of whether the Founders wanted the militia to armed as well as (or better than) the army? This IS what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
Click to expand...

Permit me to disagree in a small but specific way. While different people saw different sorts of utility in protection of the right, that does not mean that the observed utility was what the amendment was "all about".

There is at work at that time an idea of natural rights, i.e. rights possessed by free men as a consequence of their nature. Those rights include an ability to speak without prior restraint from the government, a right to choose one's own religious observance and doctrine, and a right to keep and bear arms. The idea is not that these are narrow, technical privileges. Therefore, to argue that one possesses the right described in the Second Amendment for the purpose of carrying out insurrectionist theory, or hunting geese, or shooting Indians, or shooting trap misses the point that it is described as a right, not a narrow, technical license granted toward a specific and socially agreed end.

Viewed this way, the right described in the Second Amendment does not rest ultimately on a sense of constitutional fundamentalism, but a recognition that we are free men and that it is an insult, contrary to a free man's status or nature, to disarm him.

That is not a legal argument, and it is not obviously true to people who do not believe that just laws are shaped by something inherent in man's nature. However, I note this only to avoid the trap of tying and therefore limiting the right to a specific utility.
 
Last edited:
While the militia was called out and successfully used under George Washington (to put down a rebellion!), the sad fact is that the militia was rarely anything like they wanted it to be. Essentially, it was a poor excuse for a military force. So they quickly re-established the regular army. What they were armed with was of little consequence in those days but rather, it was other reasons they performed poorly, but they were better than nothing. The main failings were poor discipline and training. It matters little what the arms are if those two elements are faulty. Even the Indians were better.

That not withstanding, I don't think there was much disagreement about what the militia was for. Obviously, a militia was a military force and it states in the constituion what it was to be called out for, at least for national purposes, although I couldn't tell you what the discussion might have been over the wording of that part. However, the concept of the militia was old, even then, although I doubt it would be proper to call Medieval armies militias, though the distinction is inexact, even if that's where it all started as far as we're concerned.

Equipping the militia was certainly a problem, at least when real demands were made on them for active duty, such as during the revolution. They were supplied by the state governments then, mostly, and frankly, some states were much better able to outfit their own troops than others were. The actual arms they required was only one part of all that was necessary to keep the troops in the field.
 
The so-called Whiskey Rebellion, which was an issue of taxes.

It is funny that at the same time some people were claiming things to be natural rights, kings were claiming divine rights. Who's to know?
 
Oh, people even disagree with what he had to say about it. But anyway, my wife is a direct descendent of George Mason, which I have mentioned before, and I frequently beat my wife over the head with the 2nd amendment, figuratively speaking, of course. But being a direct descendent of George Mason is not really all that distinctive, since he had nearly 60 grandchildren.
 
The simple #1 dictonary definition of "arms" is "an offensive weapon"

HK Flo: You obviously do not understand. The reason a beat up $50 Tommy gun is $15K? Because the supply is limitied. If the NFA was repealed and the arms covered by it were commonly available, the price would drop drastically. The cost is artificailly elevated becasue of the 1986 ban.

The whole NFA tax thing was to take something that was within the reach of the average man, out of his reach. The elitist's did not want the average man to have access to the tools to resist. $200 Tax was HUGE in 1934.

When I was in Vietnam we had two ship containers full of Tommy guns, still in the cosmoline. Brand new, never been unpacked. drum mags, 40 round banana mageverything... With government waste as it is, the NFA, and weathy collectors not wanting any comptition,,,,think what the Tommy gun market would have done if thos weapons had been sold openly to members of CMP program clubs?
 
HK Flo: You obviously do not understand. The reason a beat up $50 Tommy gun is $15K? Because the supply is limitied. If the NFA was repealed and the arms covered by it were commonly available, the price would drop drastically. The cost is artificailly elevated becasue of the 1986 ban.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that. I am saying to let machine guns made after 1986 be transferable. Or let me buy a brand new machine gun. That would make the supply available shoot up. I think there should still be some extra hoops to jump through to get one though...

Maybe not full NFA restriction, but some sort of endorsement, training, ect... think more like a motorcycle qualification on your drivers license.
 
Yeah I have a hard time understanding why some NFA items can continue to be purchased and manufactured and others can't. I have no interest in a Tommy Gun other than MAYBE shooting one once for the experience, but I just don't want to pay to feed the beast. Others should have their chance, however.
 
Maybe not full NFA restriction, but some sort of endorsement, training, ect... think more like a motorcycle qualification on your drivers license.
Click to expand...

Sure... just as soon as people use firearms in public like they use motorcycles in public, a NFA endorsement on a firearms usage license would make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top