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; Think about this. When the Bill of Rights was written, the second ammendment recognized the importance of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms ...
April 16th, 2012 02:26 AM
Think about this. When the Bill of Rights was written, the second ammendment recognized the importance of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms as well as the need for a well regulated militia. They were carrying the same "arms" as the then military would have used. Why can't we do the same now? Just a little food for thought!
Keep your booger hook off the bang switch.
It's faster to dial 3-5-7 than it is to dial 9-1-1.
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
April 18th, 2012 08:58 PM
The answer is not obvious. If a man could own battleship with cannons on it, why cant I own one today? Or why can't I own an ICBM or a backpack nuke? Where does one get the idea that it only means weapons only able to be carried by a single person? A back pack nuke or a tube of anthrax or an RPG or a stinger are weapons able to be carried by one person. I do not think it I'd obvious.
Originally Posted by Crowman
And to suggest that they didn't have RPGs or hat not, they did have grenades and artillery. They didn't have a high capacity Glock either but I think that it is covered. Wouldn't you agree? Just becuse they did not have the weapons means are guns are not protected today. We would be relegated to muskets and single shot pistols. I don't think you are correct.
April 18th, 2012 09:06 PM
Well, do your first amendment rights only apply to spoken words, words written with a quill, and words printed with lead block letters on a movable type printing press?
Originally Posted by Toorop
Facebook and twitter, which are much more powerful and widespread are protected under the 1A, so why aren't modern weapons able to be owned under the 2A? Back when dynamite was the most powerful "weapon," citizens were allowed to own it...
Last edited by Badey; April 18th, 2012 at 09:07 PM.
Reason: add content
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
April 18th, 2012 10:42 PM
"Dominoes ready to fall..."
One sincerely hopes so! Now if only we could give them a push.
April 18th, 2012 11:04 PM
I wish there was more we could do then write our congressman.
April 18th, 2012 11:15 PM
Consider: I think this argument pivots on whether the 2nd amendment is a right of the people as a whole, the individual, or both. I believe the last interpretation is the correct one. At the time of the founding men were expected to be able to show up with their individual arms. Obviously one cannot bear a cannon, yet if one purpose of the 2A is to stand as guard against a tyrannical government, the right of the people en-mass to employ the arm called a cannon must be acknowledged. Like-wise, the arms of an individual soldier would logically have to include any individually employed weapons. I guess by extension I would have to say that crew-served weapons (aircraft & their armament, tanks, etc.,) would fall under the purview of the militia.
On a further note, the term arm is, by definition, inclusive. To say firearms specifies a sub-type of arms. Other types of personal and group arms existed in 1776 so the founding fathers were aware of them. If they had meant only firearms they would have been more specific about which class of arms they meant. They did not differentiate therefore we must assume they meant all arms.
As for NBC arms, I think that's where I would draw the line. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit their effects to the enemy combatants.
Bottom line is our rights have been seriously infringed.
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment sword
2nd amendment swords
automatic knives intrastate transactions
does the 2nd amendment apply to swords
does the second amendment apply to 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.