The 2nd Ammendment....

[brewguy]

Listening to the stun gun, brass knuckles, clubs, and so on being banned has me wondering why guns are the only thing covered under the 2nd? Shouldn't any type of arm be covered?

I know we all focus on guns but there are a lot of other defensive measures that have been made illegal. Is there something that defines "arms" as a firearm?

What do you all think?

[knight0334]

Theres nothing really defining an "arm" as just only a firearm. Its just that we've allow ourselves to be slowly stripped of our means to self defense by the socialists.

Time for another Tea Party if you ask me..

[Azzy]

Theres nothing really defining an "arm" and just only a firearm. Its just that we've allow ourselves to be slowly stripped of our means to self defense by the socialists.

Time for another Tea Party if you ask me..

see the "total gun ban' thread for that one....

[LittleRedToyota]

my understanding of the 2nd amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms that are typically used by a militiaman (soldier in today's world).

so, i can see how it would not cover brass knuckles, switchblades, etc. (not that i think those things should necessarily be illegal, but i don't think the founding fathers intended the 2nd to cover them.)

however...

since soldiers in today's world use select fire M16s, SAWs, etc. i do think the 2nd amendment covers them and that the NFA is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment (since a tax is an infringement).

[ChamberedRound]

my understanding of the 2nd amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms that are typically used by a militiaman (soldier in today's world).

I agree with all of your points except where you define a militiaman as a "soldier in today's world". A militiaman is NOT a soldier. According to dictionary.com (run by Webster's), the following are the first two definitions of the word soldier:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soldier

sol·dier /ˈsoʊldʒər/ [sohl-jer]
–noun

1. a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.
2. an enlisted man or woman, as distinguished from a commissioned officer: the soldiers' mess and the officers' mess.

Neither of these are true for a militiaman, as he IS NOT engaged in military service or enlisted or commissioned as part of a professional standing army. The definition of militia from the same source:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ [mi-lish-uh]
–noun

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Sorry if I'm on a rant here, but IMHO the distinctions between a soldier and a militiaman, as well as an army and militia, are extremely important to our understanding and interpretation of the 2A. The day we equate a militiaman with a soldier is the day we agree with the absurd and incorrect "collective right" interpretation of the 2A which states that only fighting forces under federal control have a right to arms.

[D-FENS]

I think LTR means, The People should be able to carry any of the weapons used by the military, in the event that a militia need be organized, they can arm themselves with similar or equivalent arms. I don't think he's try to equate the two.

I agree with LTR, all citizens should be able to own arms carried or used by the military. I tend to take a *very* broad stance on this, personally.

/I want nukes!

[ChamberedRound]

I think LTR means, The People should be able to carry any of the weapons used by the military, in the event that a militia need be organized, they can arm themselves with similar or equivalent arms. I don't think he's try to equate the two.

I agree with LTR, all citizens should be able to own arms carried or used by the military. I tend to take a *very* broad stance on this, personally.

/I want nukes!

I completely agree, inidividual citizens (aka "the militia", as opposed to soldiers) should have access to the same weapons. That's why I said (emphasis added):

I agree with all of your points except where you define a militiaman as a "soldier in today's world".

It's cool, just making sure you realize I'm agreeing in a roundabout sorta way.

[LittleRedToyota]

CR...I agree 100% with you. a militiaman is not a soldier. i also agree with your concerns about equating the two.

the problem, however, is that, if you think of everything in a literal sense, the arms commonly used by the typical militiaman today are none. most militiamen today don't even realize they are militiamen...and a lot of them (er, us) do not even own a gun of any kind.

my fear is that anti's could use the above logic to define "arms in common use by militiamen" as "no arms" and, thus, negate the 2nd amendment. i'm personally not as worried about the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to miltias because, imho, it just plain does not say that. (regardless of the first part of the sentence, it plainly says the right of the "people", not the right of "militias" or of "militiamen".)

so, again imho, the key to "interpreting" the 2nd amendment is the definition of arms. the founding fathers defined it essentially as "arms in common use for defense" with the understanding that it was the militia that would provide that defense. in today's world, though, it is the military, not the militia, which actually does provide that defense. therefore, to maintain what the founding fathers meant by the 2nd, the arms that are specifically protected by the 2nd amendment in today's world are those that are used by soldiers.

basically, my "proof" (and it is unassailable, of course ) is:

1. the 2nd amendment clearly protects the right of the people, not of militias, to keep and bear arms. this is proven through the law of identity. X=X. the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people" and, therefore, refers to the right of the people.

2. the "arms" covered by the 2nd amendment are those commonly in use for the purposes of defending the country. while this definition is not found in the 2nd amendment, it is found in other writings of the founding fathers about the 2nd amendment...and it is provable that this is what they meant (though i don't have the citations at my fingertips).

3. in today's world, it is the military that defends the country. therefore, "arms" in the 2nd amendment refers to the arms used by the military to defend the country.

therefore:

arms = weapons used to defend the country;
weapons used to defend country = those used by the military;

therefore:

arms = weapons used by the military

so, in #3, we have established that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear the weapons used by the military...and we have established in #1 that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

thus, in today's world, the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear the arms used by the military.

and there ya have it...a little rough around the edges, but the essence of the proof that you and i have the right to keep and bear the same weapons as the military.

of course, some idiot gun-grabber will still try to argue that "the people" means something other than "the people", but if someone denies that X=X, it's kinda hard to argue with them.

hehe.

[gf45acp]

Can we make mine an iced tea? But more seriously, arms are to defend the people against enimies, both foreign and domestic, keep the domestic in mind all.