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

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

  1. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps they need to be told that the constitution places no limits on what arms the people of the several states may keep and bear.

    How could they not know this if they've even read the document?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  2. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That definition is of course not part of the 2nd amendment, but a court interpretation. Still, what would a bearable arm be?
    Anything you could carry would be one interpretation. But what are "traditionally legal purposes"? That becomes a can of worms in that government could make all kinds of things "illegal", reducing the public to slingshots. IF we were willing to tolerate that- I have no doubt it would come to pass. Freedom must always be armed, or it won't exist at all.

    Looking to the days of the revolution, I think that Traditional purposes would have included hunting, self-defense, competition And- revolution against tyranny when the conditions made it necessary. The nation was founded on the premise that the people has the right to throw off an oppressive government, and the concept of having the people armed so as to be able to resist such tyranny in government and assist in the effort to insure freedom was certainly a major consideration in writing the 2nd amendment. The order of the day included any of the kind of arms carried by the military.... the "traditional" military.

    We have allowed a great deal of restrictions on arms and the right to buy or own already- much of that based on common sense and security. However we have some people thinking that the very existence of a weapon is a threat to them, and are willing to ride roughshod over the rights of others to take them. That IS the exercise of tyranny, and it IS the reason the Second Amendment exists. It made sense then- and it makes sense now.

    Laws should punish crime, and moreso the criminal use of weapons, including guns. However the battle seems to be against the gun itself rather the the person who uses it and determines what the purpose will be- and that is the common denominator of crime with any weapon.... The person using it wrongfully. Without that person, no gun becomes a murder weapon.
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    none, no such topic is covered in the constitution nor the bill of rights
     
    Well Bonded, Longshot and An Taibhse like this.

Share This Page