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 ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36
Like Tree14Likes

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

  1. #31
    Member Array ocadmirer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    pace, fl
    Posts
    112
    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!
    surefire7 likes this.
    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.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Midwest Area to be Precise.
    Posts
    1,231
    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).


    When it was written they answer is yes. Now the answer is no. Not a trick answer.
    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.

    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.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
    . Including nukes and biological weapons.
    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?

    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 08:07 PM. Reason: add content
    surefire7 likes this.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,413
    "Dominoes ready to fall..."

    One sincerely hopes so! Now if only we could give them a push.

  6. #35
    Member Array CVarner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Morgantown
    Posts
    130
    I wish there was more we could do then write our congressman.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    1,413
    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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

,
right to bear arms amendment
,
second amendment and swords
,

second amendment right to bear arms

,
second amendment sword
,

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.