The "bearing arms" debate...

[oldandslow]

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

[BucEyedPea]

arms has already been defined — it means weapons

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't really understand why the ardent 2nd Am defenders AREN'T arguing a right to "tanks, bazookas, tomahawk missles, or nukes" as the OP said.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is what they quote.

And especially those who say the whole purpose of the 2nd Am is to defend against tyrannical govt--If that is the main purpose, shouldn't you have a right to the same weapons as the govt/military?

Why is no one arguing about the right to shoulder-mounted rocket launchers?
And if you're not, aren't you admitting that heavy restrictions on available arms are legal and acceptable?

[BucEyedPea]

What's wrong with having some of those things?

[Buzz_TinBalls]

old/slow you are completely missing the point of the USC. The point of it is to protect your individual from the collective, not the other way around.

I grant the collective it's nukes. But, if at any point, I feel the need for equal footing.. ya. I have the right to grab my own under directive of our USC.

[verbaljitsu]

arms has always had a distinct meaning from ordnance.

[mlyonsd]

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Let me first provide this caveat...I am a hunter. I own 8 guns ranging from a 30-6 to a .22. Couple of shotguns for bird hunting mixed in...

Second, I grant the 2nd amendment arguments. I believe the framers of the constitution meant that YOU could own the finest musket available. Period.

Still, isn't this whole debate about where to draw the line and how you define "arms."

I mean no one is arguing for your right to own a tank, bazooka, tomahawk missle, or nuke....right?

So how about an AK 47 or M-16 that is fully automatic...do we favor that?

Or an M-60 machine gun...should you be able to own one of those?

I guess what I am saying is that not even the most avid arms enthusiast argues that a private citizen should own an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile...Yet clearly that falls under "arms."

The debate over arms, imo, is an argument over "the line" that we draw when we define arms.

Just my 2 cents.

Since we’re in full retard mode, if I want a machine gun I’m after a Mah Deuce. Believe me, after firing the M-2 the M-60 feels like a windup toy.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by verbaljitsu

arms has always had a distinct meaning from ordnance.

Your source or a link?

Definition of ordnance includes weapons and ammunition. It's just more general referring to military supplies.

Definition of ORDNANCE
military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordnance

I think if you study the debates on this, and the original Constitution before the BoRs amended it, this would go beyond hand weapons. It was to deal with a standing arming and new federal congress regarding their powers over the MILITIA, which was not that trusted:

1) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress... (in calling up the militia)
2)Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 as it pertains to the Commander in Chief. (in calling up the militia)

The Second Amendment was intended to put some restriction on these powers should they be misused or abused as in called up against the people arbitrarily. Remember, these men distrusted govt and standing armies as they just got rid of one through the use or arms.

Example:
The Continental army placed cannon on Dorchester Heights without which they'd have had no chance to dislodge the British from Boston Harbor. They used painted logs to look like they had even more cannon than they did. It's a great story about how Colonel Henry Knox got such artillery there. Projectile weapons are a necessity against a large standing army. Remember, the people at that time also feared a large standing army too. This is why the 2nd Amendment was added.

This post applies this:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

[Mr. Kotter]

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

To me the debate should be what is causing these mass killings, not what knee jerk reactions elected officials take to trick the public into thinking they are addressing the problem.

The problem isn't guns. Its wacko people with self esteem issues.

The problem is wacko's on drugs that induce psychotic episodes of violence and suicide.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

or side boob per your chosen picture.

[Munson]

I support the right to bear arms!

[BucEyedPea]

Nothing says "get off my lawn" to the Feds more effectively than a cannon on the front porch.
Think of how much of our private property would be saved from confiscation from all the budding socialists popping up like toadstools after a spring rain.

[alnorth]

This is not a new debate, the supreme court already ruled that sawn-off shotguns are not arms. Nukes and cannons are also not arms. (No, arms does not mean weapon)