The Second Amendment says nothing about firearms

State v. Kessler:

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
Click to expand...

Constitution.org keeps a lotta resources on RKBA, including the page where I got the above quote.
 
The anti-s could give up on guns altogether and go after knives etc.
Click to expand...

Only the anti's would bring an anti-knife to an anti-gun fight.:p

You know, it's funny how if you typo "anti's", you get "aint's". Or at least I do... seems to be one of those words I habitually mis-type.

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
Click to expand...

Except for the cannon on the Concord, Mass. green on April 19th, 1775? The cannon that General Gage sent Colonel Smith and about 800 British Regulars to seize... The cannon that Paul Revere rode through the night to protect by raising alarm... The cannon and arms that the Lexington, Concord and other militias fought to protect their right to own?
 
This is an excellent question as 2A says nothing about firearms. During the revolutionary war they fought with muskets, cannons, knives, swords, pitchforks, picks, axes and everything else they could get their hands on. The argument about arms vs. ordance is about as much BS as the discussion about what is a modern militia.

Everyone keep posting what part of 2A do you not understand and to tell you the truth there is a lot of if I question and those same people that post that question seem to have problems understanding it too. Why are so many people ready to declare open Carry a God given right but completely mute and ready to accept permits when it comes to concealed carry? If one is a right then why isn't the other. There is nothing remotely mentioned in 2A about open carry vs. concealed carry. If 2A was written to protect the people from governmental tyranny then why do people think it was written for personal defense from other citizens. Remember that when 2A was written "The People" did not include all people and in fact exluded a large portion of the population and possibly even a majority of some states.

The arms vs. ordance argument people talk about cannons but what about RPG's, fully automatic weapons and nukes. The suitcase dirty bomb is a reality although unlikely and has no real military use but is it arms or ordance? These arguments and discussions can go on for weeks but the real deal is that it is all BS and subject to personal opinion on what each means.

No matter what you think just because someone doesn't agree with you what arms or militia really means doesn't mean they are an idiot. Remember they may think they same about you.
 
May I suggest a reading of the majority opinion in Heller?

It hits on the key issue of individual self-defense by one or many citizens, and discusses the history of "arms", etc.

There is much more to be read in the writings of the Founders, but Heller is a good summary and cites works for further reading if you wish.

And if it is the right of the people to force the reformation of a government gone wrong, then it is within their rights to employ arms suitable to the task...which would include cannon. How that affects keeping a 75mm pack howitzer in your garage, I dunno, but if push came to shove, employment of one seems constitutional...
 
May I suggest a reading of the majority opinion in Heller?
Click to expand...

I was just bringing up some issues for discussion that people seem to get hung up on and use as basis for proving their points. I often point out that if laws and the constitution are so clearly defined and understood then why are some many SCOTUS decisions 5-4 opinions? When you read both majority and minority opinions you sometimes wonder what causes them to think that way. The only true correct opinion is mine. :D

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.
Click to expand...

Since 2A really is about the Militia as much as individual rights shouldn't individuals have the ability to use the same arms as the Militia since the Militia is made up of the citizens. The closest thing that we have to a militia today is the National Guard and the last time I looked it had about the same weapons and the military except nukes and I am not sure about that. During the Revolutionary war many of the ships and cannons were privately owned and hired out to the Colonies. Since we have both of these examples why all of a sudden are we making such a distinction between arms and ordances when refering to private ownership? Saying that 2A only allows citizens ownership of small weapons would seem to be a new interpretation.
 
Last edited:
I took it to mean the majority opinion of briefs filed in the Heller case which is the only thing available right now. I hope that when I read the Majority Opinion in the Heller ruling I will be pleased. If not I may have to crawl up in a fetal position and cover up with the briefs filed for the case.
 
I'm DYING to read the majority opinion on Heller.

But it isn't out yet.
Click to expand...

Sorry...I meant from the DC Circuit court. My apologies for not being clear!:(

I am itching for the SCOTUS one too...especially if Scalia writes it....
 
Here's what one of the founders thought about the term "arms":

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 birthright of an American...

[T]he 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."

--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Note: The emphasis and underlining are mine.
 
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.
Click to expand...


I am not entirely happy that I know this, but that issue has been debated heavily among Trek freaks.


Thread hijack!
 
^^^
Hah, I had no idea, liking the series but not a Trekkie. I guess my grasp of the obvious worked...230 grain FMJ don't need no stinking wavelength.
 
For the time being Scotus settled this in the Heller decision.

"The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

"Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionarydefined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for hisdefence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”"
 
Back in 1776 the term "arms" could well mean a knife or sword. Which in many areas are also regulated. Here in Illinois a pocket knife with a blade over 3" is a concelled weapon. But a Bowie hanging out in the open is fine. No laws I'm aware of restricting muzzle-loading cannon.
--Years back some guy was arrested for carrying a muzzle-loader while he was acting like Ol Dan Boone making a cross country trek.
--How about a tomahawk? It was a piece of regulation equiptment for military regulars. It's also a tool. As a tool would it be considered an "arm"?
 
The Georgia Supreme Court in the early days of the country ruled in favor of arms ownership and included this line in their majority opinion"

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree...

So the idea that the 2nd ammendment applies to all types of weapons is certainly not new. In fact many militia types didn't have guns but they showed up with other weapons and did quite well with them. IMO the 2nd has always applied to all sorts of weapons.
 
--How about a tomahawk? It was a piece of regulation equiptment for military regulars. It's also a tool. As a tool would it be considered an "arm"?
Click to expand...

I don't think the tomahawk is a tool.

The blade is different than that of a hatchet, the closest parallel to a tool. The tomahawk has a narrower width of blade, and does not have as pronounced a curve as that of a hatchet.

The curve and larger width of blade helps a hatchet to systematically chop through branches or logs, making relatively shallow cuts and clearing the chopped material from the cutting area for the next cut.

The tomahawk's narrower blade would wedge annoyingly if used on a branch or log like a hatchet. The haft is also narrower, since as a weapon it would primarily strike a softer target than a wooden log. If used as a hatchet, a tomahawk would break quickly.

The design of a tomahawk is optimized for battle... it is an "assault hatchet." It is very much an "arm."

I am so incensed over the ease with which we have allowed "cannon" to be a parallel to a non-protected item. Without civilly owned cannon, the Revolutionary War might have been lost.

The same would be true today.:(
 
I am so incensed over the ease with which we have allowed "cannon" to be a parallel to a non-protected item. Without civilly owned cannon, the Revolutionary War might have been lost.
Click to expand...
I am sure the civvies owned a few small guns, but most of the field artillery was first stolen from the Brits, then supplied by the French. I have never heard mention of a civilian provided artillery piece in the Revolutionary war. Maybe state militias. Even at the end of the war the British in York Town were sieged by French Naval guns, not those of the Continental army. Not saying I disagree with your line of thought.
 
At the time of the Revolution, the military drills specified either "arms" or
"firelocks". In the British Army-where we got most our drills from-the officers carried spontoons, the sergeants carried halberds, only the rank and file-ORs, in British parlance-carried firearms. And the British terminology came from the 17th Century-the English Civil Wars-where Foot regiments were a
mix of musketeers and pikemen-hence the command "Shoulder Arms!" was an
order to all soldiers in formation while the command "Shoulder Firelocks!" would
have refered only to musketeers. During the War of 1812 it was proposed to
equip U.S. infantrymen with pikes in a ratio of 1:3 pikemen to muskeeters, wasn't adopted of course. Lancers survived until the Civil War in this country
though their numbers were small-the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry is the one unit I know of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top