Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to all weapons? - Page 2

Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to all weapons?

This is a discussion on Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to all weapons? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Around the time our country was founded, there was a difference in nomenclature for weapons. Arms were anything that a man could carry and bear ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to all weapons?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Around the time our country was founded, there was a difference in nomenclature for weapons. Arms were anything that a man could carry and bear at the ready. This would be things like edged weapons, muskets, pistols, and the like. Ordnance were anything that was crew served or that a man could not carry and bear at the ready. This would be things like cannon and mortar.

    Keep that in mind and scale to technology.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006


  2. #17
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,963
    Why do we just accept the idea that the right to bear arms only means firearms?
    Because thats what most of us were taught in school.

    Why do we not apply the right to bear arms to go after Federal Knife laws?
    Sounds great. Who is going to do it?

    Why is it that a sword can be regulated but we do not accept a rifle being regulated?
    Its because no one was concerned enough about the legislation that prohibited it to throw a hissy fit and bring it to anyones attention.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #18
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I have often wondered why people allow the Government to regulate some weapons without a fight but go ballistic when they attempt to regulate firearms? When the Constitution was written I would hazard to guess that weapons other than firearms were more prevalent than firearms. I am mainly thinking of knives but looking at old drawings and reading about weapons of the era that hatchets and short swords were also called arms at the time. A person carrying a sword was considered well armed.

    Why do we just accept the idea that the right to bear arms only means firearms? Why do we not apply the right to bear arms to go after Federal Knife laws? Why is it that a sword can be regulated but we do not accept a rifle being regulated?

    Michael
    Let me ask you this..........................doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to all US citizens? Think this over carefully before answering. Trick question. This question is no different from yours. I'll follow this thread.

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I doubt that those who wrote the Constitution saw a difference between a musket and a knife. They were both considered arms. Even today when a person is disarmed they are relieved of their clubs, knives, spears, hatchets as well as their firearms.

    This is true. It makes me wonder, did the founders actually intend that the government who the Constitution was meant to control and restrict could so easily change it? That the entity the document was supposed to control could change the laws to increase their power with a simple majority vote. While at the same time saying that those who wrote it would have to go through a laborious Amendment process to make changes that benefit them?
    It does not pass the common sense test if you ask me.

    Maybe I should have asked that in another thread.

    Michael
    Michael-- if you remember when the banned participant Self Defense was posting, he was an ardent critic of the
    Marbury v Madison ruling (and held great contempt for The SC Justices), and claimed that his viewpoint was an arch-conservative literalist - originalist viewpoint. It is indeed a peculiar situation that a bare majority of Justices should have --or claim to have--
    such great almost dictatorial power. And as we saw last week, that issue (mole) popped up to be whacked, yet again.

    In defense of The Justices, and also contrariwise at the moment feeling some sympathy for the viewpoint espoused by Self Defense, I know that this issue was debated extensively at the Constitutional Convention, and that John Adams wanted
    two checks on the legislature, but got neither specifically written into the constitution. He wanted a more powerful
    executive to control the impulses of the masses as expressed by the legislature, and he wanted a strong judiciary
    with lifetime tenure and the ability to strike laws, also as a check on the legislature. Indeed, years earlier he drafted the
    Mass Constitution, and put precisely the latter power in the hands of the Mass Judiciary.

    Anyway, Marbury v Madison is what we got and we have lived with it for 209 years.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Let me ask you this..........................doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to all US citizens? Think this over carefully before answering. Trick question. This question is no different from yours. I'll follow this thread.
    The father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist Paper, #45 says states' powers are "numerous and infinite," but federal powers are "few and defined." Is this in the ball park?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    I think he's referring to the exceptions of criminals, and non-citizens, from the time period.

    When the US was formed, only men were citizens. Predominantly (almost exclusively then) white men at that. It was a slow process expanding the definition of citizen to include women and non-white/black citizens.

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Second Amendment
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    2A is not absolute, so does not apply to all weapons, just like 1A does not apply to all speech / expression.
    However the 2nd amendment is absolute when it comes to bearing arms. Long guns and handguns are usually classified as arms. Knifes, club, brass knuckles, pitch forks, etc., are usually classified as weapons. Sadly our absolute right over the years since 1791 has been watered down. This was done by the courts, congress and the states so that now many believe it is not an absolute right.

    The language was crystal clear in 1791 and is still crystal clear in 2012 "....shall not be infringed". That does not mean any type restrictive laws. Such as size of ammo clip, charging a fee for that right, what type of gun you can not have, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    Any weapon? How about military weapons like rocket launchers, flame throwers, certain explosive devises or for that matter the greatest weapon of all...the atomic bomb. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
    It is obvious that there were no such weapons at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment. I think it is safe to say that the writers did not mean bear arms would allow people to bear a cannon (which they did have then).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram Rod View Post
    Let me ask you this..........................doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to all US citizens? Think this over carefully before answering. Trick question.
    When it was written they answer is yes. Now the answer is no. Not a trick answer.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Perhaps the OP can cite the specific "federal knife laws" he is referring to, I'm not aware of any.
    Hopyard likes this.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    Second Amendment
    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.

    ...
    It is obvious that there were no such weapons at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment. I think it is safe to say that the writers did not mean bear arms would allow people to bear a cannon (which they did have then).
    IINM some cannon actually were privately owned in the revolution... Arms consist of all weapons, including knives, pikes, dirks, etc., though usually mean a firearm.
    Tzadik likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    Perhaps the OP can cite the specific "federal knife laws" he is referring to, I'm not aware of any.
    Seems I have been under the wrong impression regarding the Federal. I had always been told that it was Federal by the LEO's I had discussed this with going back to the late 60's.
    The Switchblade Knife Act, (Pub.L. 85-623, 72 Stat. 562, enacted on August 12, 1958, and codified in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241–1245), prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, and sale of switchblade knives in commercial transactions substantially affecting interstate commerce[55] between any state, territory, possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside that state, territory, U.S. possession, or the District of Columbia. The Act also prohibits possession of such knives on federal or Indian lands or on lands subject to federal jurisdiction. It does not prohibit the ownership or carrying of automatic knives or switchblades inside a state while not on federal property, nor does it prohibit the acquisition or disposition of such knives in an intrastate transaction or an interstate transaction that is noncommercial and/or does not substantially affect interstate comerce (as defined by recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court).
    Seem the ban does not apply to the States. However it does apply to District of Columbia and all Federal or Indian lands. So we still have knives banned on Federal lands where firearms are permitted?

    Michael

  11. #26
    Member Array cglandorf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    17
    To digress to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, the founders felt that a well-armed citizenry was vital to prevent tyrannical tendencies by the federal government.

    While knives, pitchforks, etc . could be used in some fashion as “arms” on the battlefield it was felt that guns were such an egalitarian and equalizing force that possession by the people needed to be guaranteed to protect liberties in the future.
    Tzadik likes this.
    ”And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
    ~Thomas Jefferson

  12. #27
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Seems I have been under the wrong impression regarding the Federal. I had always been told that it was Federal by the LEO's I had discussed this with going back to the late 60's.


    Seem the ban does not apply to the States. However it does apply to District of Columbia and all Federal or Indian lands. So we still have knives banned on Federal lands where firearms are permitted?

    Michael
    Wow, that is interesting, not legislation I was familiar with.

    North Carolina prohibits the concealed carry of "switchblades", but possession and open carry of said knives are not addressed in the general statutes, and therefore legal. The only knife I am aware of that is expressly illegal to possess in NC is a "ballistic knife", one that fires the blade as a projectile from the grip.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array Bob O's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Central, VA
    Posts
    534
    The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the peoples' militia to have the weapons necessary to deter our government from becoming tyrannical as it was before the revolutionary war that had just been won by those that wrote the document.

    In order for this to work as intended the militia must have equal or better weapons than the government has.

    In our age that means tanks, rockets, missiles, and everything else.

    Of course this requires taking the 2nd amendment literally as was intended when it was written. Many these days don't realize the value of the liberties we are quickly losing and the cost that it took to obtain them. We won't appreciate the freedoms we had until they are all gone and it is too late.

    Makes me want to cry...

    Bobo
    Badey and Hoganbeg like this.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
    ~John Adams

  14. #29
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob O View Post
    The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the peoples' militia to have the weapons necessary to deter our government from becoming tyrannical as it was before the revolutionary war that had just been won by those that wrote the document.

    In order for this to work as intended the militia must have equal or better weapons than the government has.

    In our age that means tanks, rockets, missiles, and everything else.

    Of course this requires taking the 2nd amendment literally as was intended when it was written. Many these days don't realize the value of the liberties we are quickly losing and the cost that it took to obtain them. We won't appreciate the freedoms we had until they are all gone and it is too late.

    Makes me want to cry...

    Bobo
    . Including nukes and biological weapons.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    So switchblade knives are illegal on federal lands as are sawed off shotguns and other firearms not covered by 2A currently. This could be a very temporary situation.

    If you read the entire majority opinion of Heller they question the constitutionality of the gun control act of 1934. They say they don't have to address that question at this time but they expect they will.
    Dominoes ready to fall...
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment sword

,

2nd amendment swords

,

does the 2nd amendment apply to swords

,

does the second amendment apply to swords

,
does the second amendment apply to the carrying of swords
,
right to bear arms amendment
,
second amendment and swords
,

second amendment right to bear arms

,

second amendment swords

,
should the second amendment apply to bombs
,
the freedom to bear arms
,

the right to bear arms

Click on a term to search for related topics.