|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 24, 2002, 03:36 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: November 10, 2002
Posts: 99
|
The right to bear arms...DEFINE ARMS
I'll get right to the point.......an anti friend of mine asked me where I would draw the line in regards to what kind of ARMS civilians should be able to lawfully own.
I'll be honest, the question confused me a bit and made me think. I would like to ask TFL'ers to look up the definitin of arms and let me know what you think is the limit as to what type of arms should be available to the public. I'm not trying to be a wise guy or anything but by definition ARMS includes alot of things. Some ARMS do not belong in the hands of anybody who wishes to own them ..........or do they? Give me your opinion,and try to be serious. P.S. I recomend that you look up the definition of ARMS before you post.
__________________
#####Santino##### |
November 24, 2002, 03:42 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: November 23, 2002
Posts: 96
|
RE: Arms
Arms: Weapons, especially firearms
That's the basic definition I got from many dictionaries. As for what arms citizens should be allowed? Well... I personally believe any and all. *shrug* I may be wrong, but I haven't given much real thought to it as we hardly have the right to bear firearms, let alone any other type of modern-day weapons. Once we are allowed to bear small arms, I'll start thinking about other arms. |
November 24, 2002, 05:03 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2002
Posts: 1,239
|
Quote:
Seriously, there have been threads about this before. I'd say that people should be allowed to own any and all firearms, but no explosives whatsoever. Can you imagine the consequences of an ND with a few crates of grenades or mines??? Aircraft, nukes and the like are also a grey area...on one hand, we could use them in defense from a tyrranous govt, on the other hand, there's the whole storage/ND issue. Where WOULD you keep a nuke? 500lb bombs? Ideally, sure people should be able to own whatever they want. Realistically, it would be a total nightmare. To sum up, people should be allowed to own any and all types of firearms, but no explosives, tanks, etc.... |
|
November 24, 2002, 05:04 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2002
Location: Aloha, Oregon
Posts: 759
|
The militia provision of the second amendment is clearly a limiting provision of the RKBA clause. A militia has the same weaponry as the typical light infantry soldier. Because the typical weaponry of a light infantry solider has handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, and the like, the right of the people to own such weapons are protected. This is what was shown in US v. Miller, and if Miller's lawyer showed up, he would have been able to prove to the court that Miller's short barrelled shotgun was commonly possessed by US infantry soldiers as a trech gun in WW1.
__________________
Pagan, American, Homosexual, Pro-gun Libertarian. Any Questions? |
November 24, 2002, 05:06 AM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
I don't like that question.
Given powers granted to the government in the Constitution, what weapons may be restricted or forbidden? Since the National Government has a monopoly on foreign policy and negotiation, there's a case for prohibiting nuclear weapons to the people. For instance, if a totalitarian regime were trying keep control of a country, chances are that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Those types of regimes use biochem weapons, however, so it's difficult to argue empirically that those are only really useful for foreign policy/war/deterrence. Since people with destroyers or missile frigates parked in the Mississippi might have a chilling effect on interstate commerce between neighboring States, that could be legitimately regulated, at least enough to prevent those inter-state relations problems. The out of sight, out of mind policy that the government uses - make bad things illegal and nobody will worry about them anymore - and the fact that it's actually successful in placating the populace, that's the problem. In modern parlance, just about every type of weapon fits into some category of "arms," e.g. "nuclear arms," "biochemical arms," "small arms," and "large arms." In 18th century language, from what I understand, cannons and other non-man-portable weapons were "guns," leaving only firearms and other personal weapons in the "arms" category. (edit) (LonW) A militia has the same weaponry as the typical light infantry soldier. Huh? Because a militia has weapons x, y, and z, weapons x, y, and z are protected for use by the militia? That seems a bit circular to me.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
November 24, 2002, 07:55 AM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: December 13, 2001
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 82
|
Arms..
Anything not defined as ordinance.
I believe ordinance would be high explosives, but I could be wrong. If I am wrong thenmy definition will change accordingly. c):{
__________________
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, and call whatever you hit the target. |
November 24, 2002, 08:02 AM | #7 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Drjones,
Quote:
What about this big gas tank next to my house, should I be allowed to own it? It could blow up real big, too. Quote:
"Any and all types of firearm?" Does this mean you'd be cool with somebody owning the 16" naval rifles off of BB63, but not a measly hand grenade? What about muzzleloaders? How much black powder should Civil War reenactors be allowed to keep on hand? Do you know what the consequences of an "ND" with that stuff would be? |
||
November 24, 2002, 08:08 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,968
|
One point to keep in mind is that our system of government was intended to be a governement of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was never intended to be a we vs. they situation. Put another way, the government is not supposed to have any power that every single other person in this country does not also have; since the government is the people. We arn't supposed to have class sytem here where rights are granted to one group of people and denied to another.
With this concept in mind, your question makes no sense.
__________________
You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load. |
November 24, 2002, 09:10 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: January 13, 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 89
|
I was asked this by a guy at work who is a fellow gun owner and hunter right after the 94 ban. His view at the time was that hunting and target shooting were the only legitimate uses of firearms and a 5 round mag cap was probably excessive. I told him that I thought a citizen should be allowed anything the military has - up to and including nukes. Mostly I was trying to yank his chain and boy did I!
Since then we've had several thoughtful discussions and he agrees that military "style" weapons are the type the 2nd ammendment is referring to but he's still sitting on the fence about NFA weapons. I'll keep working on him but still try to get a rise out of him every now and then |
November 24, 2002, 09:21 AM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 19, 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 227
|
Small arms. The same as any soldier carries. No crewed weapons, no WMD.
Antis always say we probably want to carry a nuke, but that is just more foolish, poorly thought out thinking on their part. Then they always say how the national gaurd is the militia, and never have a rebuttal ready when I tell them the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and the National Gaurd was created by an act of Congress in 1917. They don't have any answers, just emotional pleas based on non existant arguments. One guy I know found out I have an AK-47. He said "Nobody needs an AK-47." I said, "I hope I never need the two I have." They antis make little sense when it comes to guns. Here's an example of an anti, and foolish views they have when it comes to guns: Scenario 1: A person sees a a man beating up another man and says, "That person is dangerous and should be arrested and sent to jail." Scenario 2: A person sees a man beating another man with a bat and says, "That person is dangerous and should be locked up." Scenario 3: A person sees a man stabbing another man and says, "That person is dangerous and should be held responsible and locked up." Scenario 4: This same person sees someone shoot someone and says,"We need to get rid of guns." That's the so called logic they have. |
November 24, 2002, 09:27 AM | #11 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Getting socratic, here...
Quote:
|
|
November 24, 2002, 09:28 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2002
Location: Lenoir City TN.
Posts: 105
|
Considering what militias of 1775-1783 had, I feel the framers of the Constitution considered "arms" to be what an individual soldier in the field would have.
__________________
"This was the great abiding lesson of my boyhood, that I was in a world where it was not possible for me to be good" George Orwell |
November 24, 2002, 09:31 AM | #13 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
LF&Co. MG,
Who did Congress intend to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" to?
|
November 24, 2002, 09:36 AM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: January 13, 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 89
|
no crew served weapons?
What is the largest weapon that has ever been issued to or whose operation has been the responsibilty of an individual serviceman?
My guess would be some kind of naval AA piece. I'll take two though I might have problems mounting it to the bed of my Ranger. Where does this leave all those Civil War artillery reenactors? Last edited by Keifer; November 24, 2002 at 10:07 AM. |
November 24, 2002, 10:20 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2001
Posts: 1,043
|
I'm a rather big fan of property rights. I don't see any justification for allowing the government to come in and steal (aka "confiscate") or forbid ownership of anything, including weapons. I trust individual citizens a heck of a lot more than governments...if anything, I think we should restrict the weapons that the government is allowed to possess.
__________________
"There goes as if deranged a German soldier, with burning helmet on his head, making horrible noises. A second, as though possessed, yells "Jews...weapons. Jews...weapons." - From an anonymous eyewitness' description of the first battle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising |
November 24, 2002, 10:27 AM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: January 15, 2000
Posts: 17
|
ARMS.......Any firearm capable of being carried by an individual.
That's what I've always thought it ment. T/S |
November 24, 2002, 10:30 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
The current Supreme Court test is weaponcentric: does this weapon have some reasonable relationship to a militree purpose. The Supreme Court, hearing only the government's side, decided that a SBS had no militree application. Our TFL combat veterans could argue otherwise. See, e.g., Burks v. State, 36 S.W.2d 892, 894 (Tenn. 1931) (12.5" barrelled shotgun is a constitutionally protected weapon).
However, this definition is far too narrow. As we know here, every firearm has a militree purpose from the Remington 700 Sarah Brady purchased for her child to a Ruger MkII .22 pistol. "The pistol known as the repeater is a soldier's weapon" and as such is protected. Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 168 (1871). "[G]uns of every kind, swords, bayonets, horeseman's pistols, etc." are protected arms. Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 473, 474 (1874). The Supreme Court of North Carolina probably has the best handle on it. "But the ordinary private citizen, whose right to carry arms cannot be infringed upon, is not likely to purchase these expensive and most modern devices just named [arty, submarines, airplanes]. To him the rifle, the musket, the shotgun, and the pistol are about the only arms which he could be expected to `bear', and his right to do this is that which is guaranteed by the Constitution." State v. Kerner,107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921).
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
November 24, 2002, 10:44 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2000
Location: penn's woods / USA
Posts: 105
|
what tamara said......
the ability to grant letters of marque presupposes the private ownership of the most copmplex weapons system of the period. the warship. private ownership of cannon was not unusual. rms/pa |
November 24, 2002, 10:48 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: Capac, MI, USA
Posts: 1,927
|
I think Lon's got it right: The "arms" refered to in the 2nd amendment are the sort of small arms issued to infantry.
The other issue, of course, is that there's nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the authority to ban ANYTHING. Banning things isn't one of Congress's enumerated powers, and per the 10th amendment, Congress doesn't have any other powers.
__________________
Sic semper tyrannis! |
November 24, 2002, 10:51 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,418
|
Brett, that's the magic of the commerce clause--the big hammer of unlimited government!
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980). |
November 24, 2002, 10:56 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2000
Posts: 2,239
|
Quote:
The only weapons that I am unsure about, are modern WMD. Which may have been un-imaginable by the framers and pose a unique problem. IMHO, the RKBA is inclusive of all conventional weapons from the .22 derringer all the way to the AH64 and beyond. Brett's point is also very pertinant. Without the Constitution granting the gov't the power to make this decision (draw the line on the RKBA), they are (in theory) powerless to do anything at all. - Gabe |
|
November 24, 2002, 12:28 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 28, 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1,749
|
IMNSHO the only "arms" that should be restricted to us civilians are nukes, chemical and biological weapons. (and the main reason for that is storage issues)
As for Bazookas, Squad Automatic Weapons, SMGs, 16in Naval guns, F16s, A1 Abrams tanks ... whatever. If you can afford it the government should have no right to say you can't own it. Now if you misuse it then the government can come down on you like a ton of bricks (much like they will if you misuse the 2 ton "killing machines" sitting in your garage now). One of the fundamental arguments we post here against gun control is that Law Abiding Americans can be and should be trusted to keep and bear arms (as is our right) because they are by their very definition Law Abiding. Why would we assume that if a law abiding citizen can be trusted to walk around with a .45 in his pocket he can't be trusted to have an FN-249 in his safe or a tank in his garage? Is his (or her) mind suddenly going to be controlled by an inanimate object just because its bigger or is just like one owned by the military? This is the same anti-logic used to ban "assault weapons" just because they look like their full auto cousins!
__________________
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt." Ayn Rand |
November 24, 2002, 12:34 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 17, 2001
Location: Farnham, Va
Posts: 2,183
|
The only people that would deny the ownership of any weapon are those who are afraid of what they themselves would do with such weapons. They are the criminal, both in their denial and in their fears.
Seeing as it is possible to gain ownership of any weapon on this earth, even through illegal means, it should be allowed to the law-abiding citizen to defend him/herself with such. When you deny ownership of a weapon - whether it be a knife or a battleship, who are you denying the weapon to? The law abiding, that's who.
__________________
Right turn, Clyde. |
November 24, 2002, 12:46 PM | #24 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 19, 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 227
|
Crewed weapons are those that require a crew to operate it.
An F16 requires a crew. A battleship requires a crew. A missle requires a crew. So on... Of course there are exceptions to things, but basically we should be allowed to carry what a soldier can carry. |
November 24, 2002, 01:08 PM | #25 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2000
Posts: 2,239
|
Quote:
I don't need gov't authorization to own anything. We allow the gov't only those powers that have been so chosen! It is a historically and morally superior way to distribute power. Power resides in the people, and only those powers deemed absolutely necessary are gingerly and with great watchfulness trusted to gov't. Quote:
Early Americans were not barred from owning cannon or even warships. So what of it if an F16 requires a crew? It's a crew made up of 'the people', the same 'people' referred to in the amendment, right? Could not the militia field an aircraft? There is no evidence to support this 'infantry weapon only' theory, and ample evidence to the contrary. - Gabe |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|