Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?

[oakchas]

A grenade is not a firearm nor is it an 'arm' one would be expected to bring to militia duty.

Why not, be handy to have some in defense of country from foreign invaders? And there are unconfirmed rumors that some of the artillery pieces we used in the revolutionary war were privately held.

Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

Certainly hope it's dangerous... at least to the criminal who may wish to rob/maim/etc., me.

Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

see above, add the plural to criminal.

Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

Common use? not so much... there were a few around, on boats.. even before the Gatling gun. but not "common"

Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

common use? I don't know on this one... molotov cocktails were around... but actual grenades?

Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

there were some exploding shells used in the civil war... not so sure about the revolution but there were artillery pieces which may have been privately held..

Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Dangerous and unusual..? maybe the latter 3, but...

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

You can have a .50 cal machine gun... or any caliber up to that, I believe... if you want to mount it on a vehicle... you can... can you take it to the public square? probably not.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

Please don't quote wikipedia as a truly reliable source for anything.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Bubbiesdad]

Yes, I get that. You prefer the current system to a potentially worse one. My point is that the current federal and state laws are absolutely 'infringing' upon the 2A, in a way that's been nickle-and-dimed and certainly not in the text. If you prefer the current system, then you're not really supporting the 2A (imo). If you'd prefer less infringement, but some, then it's still not what the 2A says. If you'd prefer the 2A say something different than it currently does, then the only way to do that is to actually amend it.

I didn't know Americans had unrestricted access to grenades. Lol. Learn something new everyday.

I think you're arguing against something I didn't say. And, for some reason, think that my current living location matters to my argument.

My point is that the current system is not what the Constitution says, if we're okay with that, then wouldn't it be better to change what it says?

I completely agree. Honestly, my hackles get a bit raised when people don't agree.

They do? Since when?

[CanuckQue]

I mis-understood what someone else meant when they were saying that the government wasn't currently infringing upon the right to bear arms. My reading of the 2A is, if it was being followed by judges and politicians, that people'd be able to purchase grenades if they wanted to.

Sorry for the continuing confusion.

[oakchas]

I mis-understood what someone else meant when they were saying that the government wasn't currently infringing upon the right to bear arms. My reading of the 2A is, if it was being followed by judges and politicians, that people'd be able to purchase grenades if they wanted to.

Sorry for the continuing confusion.

Yes, with this I agree. If our rights were not being infringed, we would be able to buy arms of any sort... up to and including nukes, I suppose. But, I don't know if we need WMD (nukes, biologicals) to protect ourselves, even from the gov't.

It is interesting to me that, in the founding era, it was considered criminal ( or at least conspiratorial) to carry a weapon concealed...

[ArmyMan]

Why not, be handy to have some in defense of country from foreign invaders?

The average typical citizen doesn't have a Federal Explosives License to then be able to posses any explosive: ATF Online - Explosives - How To - Become An FEL Grenades are very dangerous, highly controlled even within military units which use them in combat. If you fat-finger a grenade, everyone within 15ft dies.

And there are unconfirmed rumors that some of the artillery pieces we used in the revolutionary war were privately held.

Artillery aren't personal weapons. They are "crew serviced" weapons.

You can have a .50 cal machine gun...

You can, if you have a type-3 tax stamp. The unit replacement cost for the M2 .50cal is $14,000 + $7 per-round. That's what the military pays under contract. Civilians will pay 5-10 times as much.

What you can own right now, however, is a http://www.barrett.net/firearms/model82a1

if you want to mount it on a vehicle... you can...

Open-carry of any non-pistol, especially if it's loaded, is illegal in many states. I don't have the link handy but I have see before some federal laws against mounting weapons onto vehicles. FAA regulations also prevent you from mounting weapons onto or inside of aircraft.

Please don't quote wikipedia as a truly reliable source for anything.

I think what with all the credible sources I use, I'm allowed a wiki quote once in a while. However, if that link wasn't sufficient to demonstrate it's message about how guns lower crime, please let me know I would be happy to provide better sources.

[oakchas]

The average typical citizen doesn't have a Federal Explosives License to then be able to posses any explosive: ATF Online - Explosives - How To - Become An FEL Grenades are very dangerous, highly controlled even within military units which use them in combat. If you fat-finger a grenade, everyone within 15ft dies.

True enough, but if you fat-finger an automatic weapon many more could die... at far greater ranges than 15 feet... and automatic weapons can be owned by individuals.

Artillery aren't personal weapons. They are "crew serviced" weapons.

Then why would they be privately held (as in owned, not "borne")?

You can, if you have a type-3 tax stamp. The unit replacement cost for the M2 .50cal is $14,000 + $7 per-round. That's what the military pays under contract. Civilians will pay 5-10 times as much.

probably true enough... and I know you can own:

What you can own right now, however, is a Barrett

Open-carry of any non-pistol, especially if it's loaded, is illegal in many states.

except while hunting? But in Iowa it is a permit to carry weapons... need not be concealed, nor a handgun.

I don't have the link handy but I have see before some federal laws against mounting weapons onto vehicles.

Even on private property? I suppose...

FAA regulations also prevent you from mounting weapons onto or inside of aircraft.

Shame that, probably be easier to control the feral hog problem if it was allowed, than this... but this looks like a lot of fun.

I think what with all the credible sources I use, I'm allowed a wiki quote once in a while. However, if that link wasn't sufficient to demonstrate it's message about how guns lower crime, please let me know I would be happy to provide better sources.

okay... but watch it! JK

[Gene83]

I do not see anything there about citizenship, in either the text or the vibe of the text. If it's a fundamental, inalienable right, then that's what it is. My reading of the 2A is that the US government is prevented from infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms.

This is NOT to say that they have the self-appointed jurisdiction to protect foreign people's rights in this regards, because the US Constitution does not give jurisdiction over other independent states. But, the 2A (and the Bill of Rights) is a limitation on what the government may do, not a set of obligations. In other words, even though other governments may take away rights of their citizens, the US government may not seek to do so.

I made the broad assumption that "We the People" would be the citizens of the United States, so the right of the People (capitalized no less) would be the citizens. In order for a citizen to no longer have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have to no longer be a citizen.

[oldgael]

If a state recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves or the state, then also the issue of states rights are protection from the federal government

The states have rights covered by the tenth amendment to the constitution

[peckman28]

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:

1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal

You assert that society has no legitimate means of limiting your property rights. You do not recognize that authority. Do you believe in absolute freedom of individuals? At least, for property rights, you do. YOU are an anarchist, and you didn't even know it.

You somehow managed to read that definition and conclude that I'm an anarchist. I did not say there should be no laws or government or that there should be a state of disorder. What I said is not a difficult concept, I cannot believe you've screwed it up this badly. In any event, we have moved too far from the OP at this point; I would be happy to continue to debate you via PM.

[stanislaskasava]

You somehow managed to read that definition and conclude that I'm an anarchist. I did not say there should be no laws or government or that there should be a state of disorder. What I said is not a difficult concept, I cannot believe you've screwed it up this badly. In any event, we have moved too far from the OP at this point; I would be happy to continue to debate you via PM.

The OP has been sufficiently answered. Any off topic posts/debate can therefore be continued in public. Of course, if you were going to rebut me, you already would have.

You claim that limitations on property rights are illegitimate. In other words, you don't recognize the authority of society to limit your property rights. If everybody felt the same way as you, a state of disorder would exist. People would ban police from their property and turn their garages into brothels and casinos. Perhaps you should move to Nevada.

[TN_Mike]

Before you start accusing me of being an anti I am only posing this question because of another thread going on about guns in the workplace. I personally think the right to bear arms and to protect oneself is a fundamental right we are born with and one which the government can not legislate away.

So now the question is for you history buffs:
Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say you can bear arms for personnel protection?

It doesn't. But I think that is covered in the broad meaning of the 2A.

The Founders told us in the Federalist Papers that the meaning of the 2A was so that the citizen Militia (pretty much everyone) would have the same access to the weapons used by the standing Army so that, in the event that the government became tyrannical (our government mind you) the citizen militia would have the same weapons as the Army if in the case that the Army chose to stand with the tyrannical government. The battlefield would be equal. The 2A covers being able to own and carry with you on your person, arms for your protection.

So I think it is covered but the primary meaning is so we may right our country in the event that the government stops being responsive to The People. And event that the Founders saw as very likely by the way having just gained their independence from just such a government.

[CanuckQue]

Is that really in the Federalist papers? I'm a Canucklehead, but I was taught as a youth that the intent of the 2A was to protect the citizens from the government. I was a kid when I learned that, but I obviously incorporated that into my paradigm. Since then, I've seen enough 2A debates to think that this is not a common conception, and I thus take my original learning with a grain of salt.

[TN_Mike]

Federalist Paper #46: Americans, unlike the people of almost every other nation, have the advantage of being armed...Several European kingdoms have large military establishments. Yet they are afraid to trust the people with arms...Let’s not insult the free and gallant citizens of America. They can defend their rights more easily than the debased subjects of a tyrant can rescue their rights from their oppressors. And let’s not insult the American people with the supposition that they will ever allow the long series of insidious measures that would necessitate the use of armed force."


There are many other examples of the Framers talking about the meaning of the 2A in letters and other writings. Here are some more examples:

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States.)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

In federalist #28 Hamilton explains that the 2A covers self defense against a tyrannical government.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

The Constitutional courses I have taken all held that the 2A was there and worded so that the militia (all of us) would have the same weapons as any standing army. By the way, most of the framers despised standing armies and in fact, did not want the USA to have a standing army as they understood that such an army would always be used against its own people sooner or later.

[tangoseal]

When we have the inherent right to LIFE , liberty and ........ LIFE is meant to go hand in hand with the ability of one to defend themselves. That is what the founders implied. You see people were far more educated in the days of our founders than they are now. Back then we didnt have the US DEPT of ENGINEERED EDUCATION.

[peckman28]

The OP has been sufficiently answered. Any off topic posts/debate can therefore be continued in public. Of course, if you were going to rebut me, you already would have.

You claim that limitations on property rights are illegitimate. In other words, you don't recognize the authority of society to limit your property rights. If everybody felt the same way as you, a state of disorder would exist. People would ban police from their property and turn their garages into brothels and casinos. Perhaps you should move to Nevada.

Roll over to Conservative Stronghold and we will have a full property rights debate. Not here.