What is the definition of "arms" in the second ammendment

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by eschaff, Nov 13, 2019.

  1. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm curious what people think is the definition of "arms" as mentioned in the second amendment to the United States Constitution. What, exactly, are the citizens of the country allowed? Are we guaranteed that we can have pistols? Pistols and rifles? Hand grenades? Main battle tanks? Fighter jets? Personally, I think that it's reasonable that citizens be allowed pistols and rifles, but I'm not sure that actually aligns with the letter of the constitution. Thoughts?
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    DC v Heller.
    "Bearable arms" - firearms in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
    The 2nd protects all such bearable arms, even those not in existence in the late 18th century.
     
  3. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for that. "Firearms in common use for traditionally legal purposes" is pretty non-specific and itself ripe for interpretation. I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court does this sort of things on purpose just to pass the buck.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it is open to interpretation, but forces the reader to ask:
    What firearms are -not- commonly used for traditionally legal purposes?
     
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Luckily, our founding fathers expanded on this issue:

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
    - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
    - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

    "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
    - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops."
    - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

    "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
    - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
    - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

    "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
    - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
    - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
    - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

    "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, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

    "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource 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."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    "f 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
     
  6. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of the above quotes have to do with protecting ourselves from the government or protecting ourselves from invasion (militia). That was kind of what prompted my question in the first place. Anyone that believes that even millions of untrained and unorganized citizens armed with pistols and rifles would stand a shadow of a chance against a well trained army equipped with modern weapons is fooling themselves.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  7. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What kind of arms are in common use that can be used to protect ourselves from the government or invasion.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cannot have explosive devices because of storage. Arms are considered those arms taken by a soldier to war. Citizens can and do own machine guns. Citizens can and do own battle tanks and fighter jets.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  9. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you referring to our tremendous success fighting an enemy hiding among friendlies in the middle east? How about our modern army fighting an enemy with primitive weapons in Vietnam? Don't forget to factor in the percentage of our soldiers that would be willing to fire upon their own.

    Who is fooling themselves?
     
    trickyricky, FatBack and Jacob E Mack like this.
  10. Primus Epic

    Primus Epic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Personally, I'd take a very well maintained F-104 Starfighter Monday through Friday and twice on Sunday, as it is simply the sexiest jet ever made - not to mention its vital and historical role in the continuation of developing technology for safe flight well beyond Mach 1.

    After that, I'll take several H&K USP9s, a few Tavor TAR 21s, a DesertTech SRS-A2 Covert and an HTI chambered in 375 Cheytac. Finally, I'll take a brand new 21st century built Carbon Fiber M1A for nostalgia sake. I think that's what the Founders meant by "arms."

    Arms are weapons that can be "armed." That means, can you "carry" (BEAR) the weapon(s) with your "arms" and/or "body" (as your arms are part of your body). When looking to define "arms" one must connect the adjectival use of the noun to the associated or paired verb "bear" or paired conditional verb phrase "to keep and bear."

    This is not rocket science. What the founders meant is pretty easy to know and understand. Only those who wish to subvert the United States Constitution at Amendment Number Two, ever get confused about this obviously salient point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  11. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    As noted in a subsequent post my request had more to do with the idea that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be able to rise up against their government and my thought that fighting a well trained army armed with modern weapons of war would be a pretty futile undertaking. Apologies that I didn't explicitly state that in my initial post.

    Oh, and I always assumed that "arms" in the context of the second amendment meant "armaments". Also, I believe that the source of my confusion was the actual text of the amendment, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". I was unaware of the Supreme Court ruling and "keep and bear" reads to me like they're saying you can keep arms and you can bear armaments. It doesn't read to me like it means that you can only keep the armaments that you can bear.

    All that said, as yet another poster noted, it's legal and possible to own and operate a fully armed tank if you can afford all of the permits and taxes, and yet there are places that restrict the ownership of certain weapons. It all seems to be kind of a muddled mess to me.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The united states military, and by extension the united states federal government, has been losing for decades against poorly trained, poorly armed individuals in declared states of war.
     
  13. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    We're the good guys. We don't allow ourselves to inflict indiscriminate collateral damage. I don't assume that a government despotic enough to be overthrown would have any such qualms.
    The full force of the military was never brought to bear, and there were political factors that prevented us from using a more effective strategy.
    Don't forget the percentage of the armed citizenry that wouldn't take up arms against the government and may, in fact, work with them.
    I think that we both are to a certain extent. I'll admit that a large portion of lightly armed citizenry could be a pretty painful thorn in the side of a the government, but I also believe that a complete overthrow is an extreme long shot.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  14. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not the overthrow; its knowing that any attempt to disarm our citizens will come at a price and could never result in a win.
     
  15. Shook

    Shook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As used in the Constitution, "arms", as I understand it, are weapons of the same firepower as those weapons held by the state. That would include F-35 fighter jets, A-10 gunships and Abrams tanks.

    Aside from the impracticality of it, I don't have any problems with that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  16. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well here is how I see it. You either believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the citizens to have a means of defending themselves from tyranny—or not.

    If not, then how could the size and power of the federal armed forces have anything to do with the RKBA? it does not matter how many weapons my government stockpiles, and how powerful its armed forces become, because my right is, in fact, my right—regardless of the strength of my military.

    If you believe a purpose (or indeed THE purpose) of the Amendment is to allow the citizens to resist a tyrant-dominated federal army, then the right is still, in fact, my right. It is not subject to some power of the government to claim it should be repealed because it is no longer effective—particularly when it is the government itself which claims to have created out of its own power the conditions that allow it to claim the right is now irrelevant.

    If you believe the government’s power has grown beyond the ability of a constitutional protection to check the misuse of that power, then in my opinion the better argument is we need to reduce the government’s power rather than willingly surrender what protections we do have.

    I fully recognize the quote from Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, May 27, 1788. (TJ’s spelling in original)

    Yet I believe constitutional rights were enshrined in our Constitution to provide a check on the power of the government. They were not put there as “challenge accepted” benchmarks for the government to attempt to get around, render irrelevant, or make practically inoperable by growing its own power beyond the ability of these checks to stop it. I believe it is a very poor argument indeed which would encourage the government to effectively destroy an individual constitutional right by deliberately creating circumstances in which it can claim the right is or would be no longer effective—and thus in need of repeal into the dustbin of history.

    At least that’s my two cents. Agree or disagree as you will. I am not suggesting that anyone here has actually made the argument I am calling into question. I am only giving my opinion on what I believe is the flawed logic of the “military is too strong so since we can’t defend ourselves anymore it’s time we gave up the RKBA” argument I have heard here in other threads.
     
  17. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cannons and rapid fire weapons for sure (both existed well before they wrote it). I'd wager tanks and machine guns and rocket launchers as well, though theres no way to be certain.

    Nukes are the real question. I think thats where they would've drawn the line.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  18. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 2A was included for national defense against enemies foreign and domestic. I think it would mean any weapon that can be hand held and used to fight a military. I think I would exclude weapons that can kill multiple people at once like grenades, poison gas, or nukes. I have no problem limiting full auto. It's a waste of ammo anyway.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  19. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The British Army made the mistake of believing that too. Twice.

    This should give you an idea of what going up against American gun owners would be like. We have LOTS of guns.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of which is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.
     
  21. trickyricky

    trickyricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The citizens of the country are not "allowed" anything.
    The government is restrained and prohibited from infringing on the natural right of the defense of self (and country), as inherent in the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What arms does the constitution prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from possessing?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  23. Enuf Istoomuch

    Enuf Istoomuch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    524
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The point of the Second Amendment is that The People must have the ability to defend against the rise of a tyrannical government or a foreign invader. As such, any and all arms of common military utility fall within the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So, yes, if you want to own and can afford and convince the manufacturer to sell you one, you may own an M1A2C Abrams Main Battle Tank if you so desire.Or a fighter jet. That is under the Constitution of course, not current law. With the classified nature of many elements of a tank design, or that fighter jet, you will run into government authority refusing permission for the manufacturer to sell you these things.

    Still there are Americans with the money and interest who do own fighter jets and tanks, heavy machine guns and artillery. Just not the latest and still classified models. They obey all laws of course, where not permitted to have working cannon or whatever other arm, those things are disabled in a manner prescribed by law. Still, the expense is not trivial.

    Back to the point of firearms, whatever the military is using plus the current state of the art, ownership by the common citizen of any or all all of this is protected by the Constitution.

    About the "well regulated militia" part of it, this refers to training in small unit drill and tactics. This is lacking for most Americans whether they have an interest or not. It is something that should be corrected but I doubt it ever will be.Of course, that military training does not negate the right to keep and bear arms. You cannot train if you are not armed, the arms do come first.
     
  24. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Arms that were in use at the point the 2nd Amendment was signed.
     
    Jacob E Mack likes this.
  25. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would include rifled artillery, grenades and explosive ammunition, man-portable large caliber (1-1/4") semi-automatic firearms, mortars and by some accounts, dumb-fire rocket launchers, all of which are currently illegal without a 'destructive devices' permit from the ATF (the same permit required for machine guns).

    These weapons all existed for decades or centuries prior to the 1770s. They were prohibitively expensive and rare due only to limited manufacturing processes or imperfected safety mechanisms, which made them impractical for common military use. They were kindof like laser and magnetic weapons are today- well known, but only used in special circumstances by those with vast resources.

    I think this approach to firearm control is a far bigger can of worms than you realize...
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019

Share This Page