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; 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? ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
Like Tree14Likes

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298

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

    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array Tzadik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, Virginia
    Posts
    608
    decades of being told that "compromise" is a virtue and inertia
    oneshot likes this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,903
    Here is a two question test all potential judges for the, SCOTUS or for that matter, ANY judge should have to take, and PASS.


    Multiple Choice ;

    First Amendment to the Constitution

    A) Authorizes Free speech for official State news agencies
    B) Protects the Individualís right to own quill pens and 18th Century manual printing presses
    C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to free speech

    Second Amendment to the Constitution

    A) Authorizes possession of arms by the Army & National Guard
    B) Protects the Individualís right to own Flintlock muskets & other 18th Century Arms
    C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to keeping and bearing arms


    Seems pretty easy to me, how about you guys??
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array Yankeejib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    Here is a two question test all potential judges for the, SCOTUS or for that matter, ANY judge should have to take, and PASS.


    Multiple Choice ;

    First Amendment to the Constitution

    A) Authorizes Free speech for official State news agencies
    B) Protects the Individual’s right to own quill pens and 18th Century manual printing presses
    C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to free speech

    Second Amendment to the Constitution

    A) Authorizes possession of arms by the Army & National Guard
    B) Protects the Individual’s right to own Flintlock muskets & other 18th Century Arms
    C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to keeping and bearing arms


    Seems pretty easy to me, how about you guys??
    Keep your eyes on your own paper!

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Thunder71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,505
    Just arms.

    Bear arms at that... not sure what's so special about bear arms.


  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    My short answer would be the NRA.

    To elaborate, that does not mean they don't care about other rights, but they have been the lead in protecting the 2A and have the most money to do so. It is natural for them to focus on guns, but I think your idea about other weapons is starting to gain traction as we keep gaining back ground with respect to guns.

    I agree, it should protect 'arms' and some of the knife laws out there are just as stupid as some of the gun laws. I can carry as big of knife as I want in my pocket here in WA as long as it folds, but any fixed blade no matter how long is illegal to "conceal." REDICULOUS!
    Hopyard and oneshot like this.
    Walk softly ...

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    I agree with Michael that it should be applied to weapons other than firearms, but it isn't.

    As to the why, I think the notion that the NRA is the reason, is a bit too easy. Each state has its own history of enacting bans on various weapon types, and I am sure there is a very long history of judicial rulings in the various states, many of which
    have their own version of 2A.

    These laws tend to get enacted in the heat of the moment after some horrific crime which has caught the public's attention.

    There are places where you can't legally carry anything (except a handgun with a permit). No knife, no pepper, no club,
    not even tools of your trade unless you are actually engaged in the trade--e.g., screwdrivers, hammers.
    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

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    I'm inclined to agree with Hopyard concerning the "why" on these things. Legislation passed in a hysterical moment after some spectacular crime or incident is generally regrettable later.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    2A is not absolute, so does not apply to all weapons, just like 1A does not apply to all speech / expression.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    I did miss the OP point a bit. While 2A is not absolute, current limitations and restrictions infringe. Here in MI I sometime worry about the length of a knife I'm carrying (for example a Glock knife). Even when camping or hunting, I've been concerned that some over-zealous anti-2a park ranger or dnr officer might not like that I'm carrying, but since I have the proper documents for the firearms, would find some reason to trouble me over a long knife. I guess for that matter a hatchet, or even the glock e-tool.

    From having to have the permit (aka papers) on me for firearms to worrying about transporting and carrying a knife in a legal manner accourding to how someone else might interpret the law at the moment; it is all frustrating.

    For certain, 2A has been limited to the point of infringement.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    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.
    Hopyard and 10thmtn like this.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    There does have to be a line drawn "somewhere." The problem with non-firearms weapons is that there are
    too many lines. Unlike state preemption for permits, most places let every town and city do whatever the heck
    they want. And as a practical matter, an officer's discretion is often the difference between who is carrying
    a weapon and who is carrying a tool of the trade or a piece of sports equipment, or a kitchen utensil.
    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

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,245
    The 2nd Amendment and how and what it applies to is decided by the current court and what case is in front of it.
    It can change anytime a justices is changed.
    Real world at the time the constitution was enacted I doubt anyone had a problem with your knife , axe handle ect so they just never saw it as a problem.
    Doghandler likes this.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    The 2nd Amendment and how and what it applies to is decided by the current court and what case is in front of it.
    It can change anytime a justices is changed.
    Real world at the time the constitution was enacted I doubt anyone had a problem with your knife , axe handle ect so they just never saw it as a problem.
    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.
    It can change anytime a justices is changed.
    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

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    If the Federal government can ban the ability to possess a switchblade outside the home why shouldn't they be able to ban carrying a 1911 in public?
    If we accept that they can do the former how can we reasonably object to the latter?

    Michael

Page 1 of 3 123 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

,
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.