The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms

M

maestro pistolero

New member
Ok, I'm baiting you all a little.

My point is, doesn't the term arms apply not only to firearms but to other weapons as well? Aren't knives, swords, slingshots, bows, crossbows, clubs, num-chucks, and pepper spray also arms?

As such shouldn't their legitimate use as defensive weapons be equally protected?
 
No...and...um...No.

Go back and think about military commands. "Arms" always refered to a firearm of some sort. When in formation getting ready to fire. The term "Arms" were always used. They never said "Ready Arms" when the army was only using swords and Long bows>
 
Go back and think about military commands. "Arms" always refered to a firearm of some sort. When in formation getting ready to fire. The term "Arms" were always used. They never said "Ready Arms" when the army was only using swords and Long bows>
Click to expand...

Um, no.

Think of a line of infantry prior to the invention of firearms.

"Arms" can refer to spears, halberds and a great many different types of pole-arms issued to an infantryman.

We also have a "Coat of Arms" for noble families which will often times prominently display swords, shields, maces, axes, bows, arrows and other weapons.
 
The point is, the 2nd guarantees our rights to use any armament we can.
To ban any weapon used to arm oneself is blatantly against the Bill of Rights.
That is why there is such a heated debate over the 2nd Amendment.

When "laws" began infringing on our rights, this country became The Socialist States of America.
Some of us want our rights back.
 
I would just point out that the framers could have said "The right of the people to keep and bear muskets, or guns, or firearms shall not be infringed".

But they didn't. They said simply "arms".
 
Looking back at the framers' correspondence and the federalist/ antifederalist arguments, it's readily apparent that the original intent meant military grade weaponry in general and firearms in particular.
 
the antis could claim that as long as we have knives we have the right to bear arms, much as they won on full auto weapons and are seemingly about to win on semi-auto weapons.
 
I think that the term arms refers to more than firearms and i also think that the term arms reflects that at the time it was written.

Dont forget swords, knives, bayonets, bombs, grenades, rockets, pistols, rifles, shotguns, cannons, clubs and stick implements were all in fair use during the constitution's creation. So if the second only was ment to represent firearms it would say firearms and not arms.
 
arms--- firearms, the dumbing down of america continues. Meanings of words like these use to be covered in schools back in the old days.

kenny b
 
Of course it pertained to the time it was written... meaning

swords, knives... clubs... rifles (muskets) and single shot pistols...

just like freedom of speech only pertained to public speaking, and documents produced by a hand press.
 
The Forgotten Amendment

Let us not forget the Amendment that calls for the seperation of church and state. It does not mention church or state.
 
"Arms", "keep" and "bear" are terms of art used in legal and philosophical discussions that predate firearms and the colonization of this country. Majority brief on Heller has some information about this as do the Founder's notes and discussion, references to prior law, etc.

The essence of 2A is two-fold: you have only the rights you can defend and individuals have an inalienable right to self-defense against predation, small (local criminals) or large (government run amok).

The use of "arms" at the time clearly contemplates firearms but is not limited to them. Then, as now, the firearm is the most effective means for an individual to defend oneself, singly or in a group, depending on the circumstances. However, IMO the Founders did not intend to limit what means individuals chose for self-defense. Recall also that edged weapons played a large role in combat at the time.

When/if firearms become obsolete technically, 2A will be just as relevant a statement of the human condition as ever.

Watching Star Trek NG last night, and seeing the Borg become immune to phaser's of a certain wavelength, I counldn't help but wonder why no one mentioned kinetic weapons as a solution...In the situation, a 1911 might have been very useful.

Okay, it's early. I will go have some more coffee...
 
Let us not forget the Amendment that calls for the seperation of church and state.
Click to expand...

There is no amendment that says church and state have to be separate.

In God We Trust.

As for the main topic, the 2A don't talk much about grenades or nukes. However, we, like the founders, understand that there is a difference between arms and ordnance. Then again, this country used to have privateers.

One Nation, Under God.
 
As for the main topic, the 2A don't talk much about grenades or nukes. However, we, like the founders, understand that there is a difference between arms and ordnance. Then again, this country used to have privateers.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that and can you give a definition of the difference? The constitution is extremely easy to understand as long as you are interpreting my way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top