Arms Then and Arms Now

[charon]

Where do you think they got the cannons? The American Congress couldn't get enough cannons for themselves. They were often already owned previously, and like I said, remained so after the war...privately owned, unrestricted. And again, they put no restrictions on the grenades, anyone could buy/build one without any registration or other infringement. And I think you're taking the wrong position on this, looking for an argument in favor of privately owned artillery and such, when, I haven't found any of the founders really arguing against being able to own any weapon privately.

The founders may not have cared, but they did know the difference between arms and ordnance and should have included a reference to ordnance in the 2nd if they wanted it to be clearly covered by the BOR.

As noted, the Websters' definitions cover both arms and ordnance. Bearing arms was also apparently literally known to have a specific meaning at the time. I believe Madison in the Federalist 46 supports both the definition of arms and bear.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

Also, Johnson's dictionary, while a great work, was a one-man project with one man's definitions being provided. "No dictionary so vast and comprehensive is so thoroughly permeated with the individuality of its compiler. What required an academy in other nations was performed in eighteenth-century England by a single self-styled “harmless drudge” over a period of a mere nine years."

The government documents cited below show a clear distinction between arms and cannon:

James McHenry to Samuel Dexter (Secretary of War) Philadelphia, PA, 29 May 1800 http://www.gilderlehrman.org/search/collection_pdfs/05/23/0/05230.pdf

Impressed with a conviction, that the Cannon contemplated to be purchased by “An Act to enable the President of the United States to procure Cannon, Arms & Ammunition, and for other purposes” passed the 4th of May 1798 were intended to be efficient, and the best adapted to the several kinds of service to which they must be applied, and knowing that the measures which have, nor any that can be taken, to procure Cannon by purchase, for the use of the United States either by importation from abroad, or manufacture at the different private Foundaries at home; could never insure, that perfect uniformity in model, weight, caliber and consistency of Metal necessary to the perfection and full utility of the Ordnance of every Country – also having a well rounded expectation, that Metal could be had in the United States adjacent to [12] one of our National Armouries, superior to any that had been used for the Guns procured by purchase – and believing provision was made by the third Section of the act cited, enabling to purchase Founderies in case such establishments should be found necessary, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy on the 10 of March last, proposing that the two Departments should join in a representation to the President, recommending the purchase of a site for a Cannon Foundery, and of Ore, the best adapted for Ordnance, in exclusive propriety to the United States and also, a permanent National establishment for casting Cannon and shot.

and from the same:

For the purpose of establishing an Armoury or manufacture of small arms, a site was selected on the Potomac, near Harpers Ferry...

They are establishing where the arms will be made, and where the ordnance (cannons) will be made. The following I came across in a post and haven't been able to verify the primary sources. But if taken at face value theu confirm the above primary source that distinctions between arms and other types of weapons were well established in direct usage:

Letter from George Washington to President of the Convention of New Hampshire, Morristown, 1777 Jan. 23. “the Enemy” ... “will make themselves charters of our magazines of Stores, Arms &Artillery.” Letter from George Washington to Henry Knox, 1781 February 16, “Applications have been also made to the Court of France for a large supply of powder, arms, heavy cannon, and several other essential articles in your Department.” Letter from Henry Knox to George Washington 1782 March 10, “In my opinion we could spare some small Arms or [struck: small cannon] [inserted: field pieces]”. (The above are from the letters of George Washington.)

Again I think there is an overwhelming case for the right to own a full auto M-16 or AK, a gray area between right and privilege at the belt fed and grenade/grenade launcher level and little support beyond a granted privilege for cannon and other ordnance.

The good point is that it provides a clear argument for rolling back automatic rifle restrictions while eliminating one of the anti's more successful and hysterical emotional appeals against both full and semi autos. The "sensible" gun control argument based on the false comparison between a semi auto rifle and a nuclear bomb and the need to restrict one opening the door to restrict the other for the "common good."

I actually used it to shut off my RINO Federal Congressman (Mark Kirk, 10th IL) in a surprisingly unscreened phone "town hall meeting" a few months back when I confronted him on his views on semi autos. Came in from cutting the lawn, the phone rang, and the autodialer said "stay on the line for a town hall meeting. Press five to get in the que to ask the Congressman a question." I knew he supported AWBs, had an NRA F rating etc. and as he started into his winding lead up: "While I support the 2nd Amendment, blah blah blah... certain weapons are so powerful blah blah blah... sensible restrictions... artillery for example... blah blah... " I cut him off... "but Congressman, you are talking about ordnance and that is not covered by the Constitution. What does that have to do with restricting a common semi automatic rifle?" It's amazing how flustered a congressman becomes when you knock him off script in front of a live audience of about 400 or so, and when he's trying to spin a pro 2nd line with a F rated voting record

 

[wjustinen]

Cosmoline

I don't really want to see a Second that's about the right of states or groups of armed men to rise up and challenge the feds. Though that may well have been much of the motiviation for creating the Second to begin with, it's an interpretation rife with problems today.

Given that was the reason, given by the framers, for including the Second, I fail to see your reasoning. It was then, and will always be, rife with problems. It seems that the framers understood that very well and placed the "shall not be infringed" phrase in the ammendment to ensure that the maximum possible number of people be armed so as to do two things.

First, to have the government always mindful that the ultimate check on their power was a well established reality.

Second, to ensure that a very large portion of that armed population would be required to agree on, and successfully implement, the actions contemplated to rein in a rogue government.

Given the realities of history, I always wonder who it is that persons who want to revise or infringe upon 2A rights are afraid of. What could they possibly fear so much that they are willing to risk losing their own rights?

 

[deadin]

There is little argument elsewhere in the Constitution - written in the same language, by the same people, ratified by the people of the several states

I would say that the definition of "the people" might have more meaning than a lot of todays "people" realize.
Thanks for the definitions. No.4 is a bit worrysome.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Charon: "For the purpose of establishing an Armoury or manufacture of small arms" says "small arms" which is rifles, etc. The word small there is significant. But the Second says "arms" not "small arms." Arms was and is all inclusive of any weapon.

The lines you quoted before that were clearly making a distinction between cannon and "arms" (small arms) though it just said "arms" but that is because they were looking at potentially different places to manufacture cannons versus small arms.

By definition "arms" as used in the Second includes all weapons. If they had only intended small arms to be included they would have said "small arms" or they would have included a phrase excluding the right to own non-small arms, like cannons, grenades, etc. But they didn't, they only said "arms" which means any weapon.

Like others have said, I do sadly believe any individual rights court decision on the Second will not protect the right to own WMD's (nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, etc.) even though it clearly protects the right to own such weapons, but, current federal law doesn't actually ban the private ownership of artillery and grenades and such, it instead places so many restrictions (read infringements) that it tends to be expensive and difficult to obtain the weapons in sizeable numbers because of the NFA. The purpose of the NFA is clearly to infringe on the right, as it's not just a registration but a heavy tax (think about it, a $200 tax on every grenade makes it very difficult for most people to afford them, and $200 was a lot more money in 1934 than now). I think it may be possible if we get a favorable individual rights decision to at least get the NFA modified to be less restrictive on these weapons, but the odds may be low. The odds are probably better of getting the 86 MG ban overturned, though that seems to be low at the moment and entirely dependent on how the SCOTUS rules if they do rule at all.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Deadin,

Definition #4 only appears scary.

The definition, "Persons of a particular class" would refer to the "a people" definition such as "American people", or "the Jewish people". It is a plural case denoting the all of the members of the class as the persons of the class, not the singular unit that bears the name of the unit, such as is the National Rifle Association. The NRA is an organization representing the people of the NRA. A good way to tell the difference is that the people of the NRA have rights, and the NRA only has those powers the members of the NRA grant to it, such as the power to lobby for the rights of the NRA people.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

 

[deadin]

it instead places so many restrictions (read infringements)

Would it follow that the fact that a weapon costs anything at all could be looked upon as an "infringement" to me owning it?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The government documents cited below show a clear distinction between arms and cannon:

The only salient "government document" applicable is the Second Amendment. It has the weight of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Woody

 

[deadin]

The definition, "Persons of a particular class" would refer to the "a people" definition such as "American people", or "the Jewish people".

Woody,
Are you falling into your own trap? This sounds like your idea of what #4 means.

Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859
Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do.

Now if we could just get SCOTUS to say the same thing.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Would it follow that the fact that a weapon costs anything at all could be looked upon as an "infringement" to me owning it?

As much as I'd love seeing free machine guns or grenades being handed out, I don't think so...it was always accepted that people could own any weapon they could afford to buy. The NFA adds a hefty tax and a pile of paperwork and restrictions to the actual cost of a product, preventing many people from buying the items.

 

[deadin]

But that's the American Way. Tax it out of existence. See cigarettes, gasoline, etc..

 

[AntiqueCollector]

But smoking is not exactly protected in the Bill of Rights the way arms are...

 

[charon]

woodcdi: The only salient "government document" applicable is the Second Amendment. It has the weight of the Supreme Law of the Land.

AntiqueCollector: Like others have said, I do sadly believe any individual rights court decision on the Second will not protect the right to own WMD's (nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, etc.) even though it clearly protects the right to own such weapons,

I would like to think the 2nd applied to ordnance, but I need something to go on here. I'm new to the board but by no means unfamiliar with these issues, living in cook county Ill and having to fight for my rights on virtually a monthly (or at least quarterly) basis. Fortunately/Unfortunately, we are the side of facts, and we have to have solid facts to support both any defense and any offense, since the other side gets free reign with emotion, spin and deception. Emotion and deception are powerful, but the facts are starting to grind down the opposition.

Show me where the 2nd clearly includes ordnance in a broader definition of arms and I have no problems with the 2nd covering cannons as well as rifles. I personally have no emotional bias either way on this issue, though I do think it provides a tool for the antis to scare the moderates. "These nuts want to have ICBMs so they can nuke Washington when Hillary takes office!" Now, that wouldn't matter in the least if it was clearly protected under the 2nd. Don't like my owning a howitzer -- then Amend the Constitution if you think you can.

But, I have yet to see that link between ordnance and arms established, other than assumptions and perhaps wishful thinking. Just a reference or two from any of the founders linked to any primary source document. There are certainly a lot of primary sources to support the broad pro 2nd Amendment position related to individual rights and military-style small arms.

But, also clearly, IMO, there was a common use distinction between Arms and Ordnance. There is no need for the regularly found distinction placed between cannons and arms or artillery and arms or ordnance and arms if arms covered the broad range of military weapons. You just say arms.

We rely on the use of language from the period to establish the difference between a general and select militia, and the record of that language usage is so clear that even the anti academics can't ignore it anymore. Many of those same sources make it clear that at least military small arms are fully covered. The GCA denies a clear right and if you want an M-16 then you should have one as easily as any other arm. A goal to work towards, though I agree with AntiqueCollector that it will be a tough goal even with abundant evidence.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

I think this is an interesting thread. I think it's a worthwhile discussion too, even if it isn't all going to change overnight. Laws change gradually, sometimes, but it's still important to have an idea of where you want them to end up-- be advised that your opponents do.

Has anyone looked into how the phrase "bear arms" was used in Jurisprudence/law at the time? Of course, there wasn't much in the way of american law, but what about in british and colonial law? From what I'm told the idea goes back to Alfred the Great, who was nearly exterminated along with the rest of the Saxons because they didn't bear enough arms when they Danes attacked. Back then "arm" meant a long edged weapon like a spear or halberd or axe, I guess.

The reason I'm "axing", is because the phrase might have had some legal jargon use different from what would have been in a regular dictionary.

 

[hugh damright]

I don't believe that individuals with weapons of mass destruction are necessary to the security of a free State. In fact, it seems awfully clear to me that individuals with weapons of mass destruction are a threat to free government. Free government is popular government. In the days of muskets, an armed people ensured a popular government. It does not follow that, in the days of nukes, individuals with nukes ensure a popular government.

 

[DogBonz]

Woodcdi

In ye olde dictionary, does it define the word “gun” or “guns”? I ask because it is my understanding the word “gun” was a term for a naval vessel, not a personal weapon.



Also, I find it interesting that a number of founders felt that the BOR was dangerous. This was because by explicitly “guaranteeing” cretin rights implied that the government had the authority to take any in the first place. They felt that by not having a BOR, that the Gov’t could only operate as the constitution dictated.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Antique collector...

Smoking certainly is protected just as owning a weapon is - at least if you pay attention to the 9th Amendment.

The BoR does not list all of our rights - it doesnt even try. Its sole function, as identified by the preamble, is to further restrict government powers. The people are still free to do as they please.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Charon...

You said that you'd like to believe ordinance was covered under arms but need something to go on. Ok - fine, does logic and basic set theory give you "something to go on"?

The phrase "arms" covers ALL weapons. Ordinance is a specific TYPE of weapon. IOW, all ordinance is an type of arm (weapon), but not all arms are ordinance. Rather like noting that all men are people, but not all people are men.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

hughdamnright...

you said :

I don't believe that individuals with weapons of mass destruction are necessary to the security of a free State. In fact, it seems awfully clear to me that individuals with weapons of mass destruction are a threat to free government. Free government is popular government. In the days of muskets, an armed people ensured a popular government. It does not follow that, in the days of nukes, individuals with nukes ensure a popular government.

Yes, WMD's are a threat to government - as are all weapons. They're supposed to be.

Regardless, thats a really lame argument as has been pointed out before. Currently all WMD's in the US are owned by the US government, and they're under no obligation to sell one to an individual. Of course the government can legally restrict importation of them - as they could with any other import. In addition, simple financial constraints will restrict ownership of anything like that to such a small subset of the population as to be irrelevant.

In essence, the whole WMD argument is simply a way to get a foot in the door by saying "Well if the government can restrict these, then the 2nd Amendment protections are not absolute and anything else can be restricted as well".

Government must be granted authority to do something. This whole argument about what the 2nd Amendment allows the people to own is smoke and mirrors.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Smoking certainly is protected just as owning a weapon is - at least if you pay attention to the 9th Amendment.

The BoR does not list all of our rights - it doesnt even try. Its sole function, as identified by the preamble, is to further restrict government powers. The people are still free to do as they please.

My point was the keeping and bearing of arms is specifically listed as a right that cannot be infringed upon. Smoking is not listed. It may be one of the "other" rights not listed but it would be more difficult to prove it's a right than to prove owning weapons is a right.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Antique

It shouldn't be any more difficult to prove, because government has not been granted the authority to restrict it.

The people do not have to prove they have the right, government is obligated to prove it has authority.

Thats where we're approaching this all wrong people. We do not need permission to own whatever weapons we choose - government must be granted permission to forbid it.

I don't know when we fell into the mindset that it was acceptable for government to do anything it wasn't forbidden from doing.

 

[hugh damright]

Yes, WMD's are a threat to government - as are all weapons. They're supposed to be.

What I'm saying is that personal WMD's are a threat to free government, and free government is the very thing which the Second Amendment is intended to secure. The idea is that a standing army can turn against the people, but a militia composed of the people is inseparable from the people, and so the proper defense for a free government is militia. It seems so very clear to me that an individual with a WMD can also turn against the people, and would be more likely to turn against the people than a standing army, and the whole idea is antithetical to the principles which the Second Amendment represents.

simple financial constraints will restrict ownership of anything like that to such a small subset of the population as to be irrelevant.

The whole relevancy is that it is a subset which would yield the WMD's, and thus they might be turned against the people, and thus the whole idea is antithetical to principles which the Second Amendment represents. I don't see how you can say that only some few rich people would possess this military power (WMD's) and not see how that threatens popular government.

Of course, if every single person had WMD's then we'd all be equal ... but the whole idea is inane.

 

[charon]

You said that you'd like to believe ordinance was covered under arms but need something to go on. Ok - fine, does logic and basic set theory give you "something to go on"?

The phrase "arms" covers ALL weapons. Ordinance is a specific TYPE of weapon. IOW, all ordinance is an type of arm (weapon), but not all arms are ordinance. Rather like noting that all men are people, but not all people are men.

Then why are arms listed separately from cannons, artillery and other military items in contemporary documents of the day if the term arms is inclusive. None of these citations draw out any other class of weapon -- rifles, pistols, etc. -- just cannons. Arms, and cannons.

...Cannon, Arms & Ammunition
...our magazines of Stores, Arms & Artillery
...a large supply of powder, arms, heavy cannon, and several other essential articles in your Department

Then there is this Webster's dictionary definition of arms (the academically produced US dictionary that was not a personal hobby project of one Londoner), that David Kopel cited in my earlier post. Here's what he has to say about that:

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.

Just show me one reference along the lines of Madison's Federalist 46:"This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Something like: "With arms in their hands and cannons by their side..."

Does any of the current pro 2nd amendment legal scholars or activists like Kopel, Kleck or Lott support this position? What about the NRA-ILA? Does the GOA even support this position?

Is there anything that might sway SCOTUS, or a federal district court? I strongly believe there is for automatic rifles, likely even belt-fed machine guns (if they are honest about it). What about ordnance?

So far I've posted a bunch of sources for what causes my doubts. In return we basically have an English dictionary written by one self-described “harmless drudge” and opinion. Anything out there I could include in my next letter to the editor or state senator when the latest Illinois AWB gets launched?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Some Answers

Deadin,

All I did was make a simple statement of what Johnson's Dictionary gives as examples of how the definition applies. Johnson's Dictionary is replete with examples taken from prose and other sources. The ones it gives for that #4 definition of "people" are as follows:

"If a man temper his actions to content every combination of people, the music will be the fuller." Bacon

Every "combination of people" would comprise the separate classes of persons.​

"A small red flower in the stubble fields country people call the wincopipe." Bacon

"(C)ountry people" is the particular class of persons in this example.​

Charon

If you go back and reread comment #25, you will find the context and definitions of "ordnance" and "arms" and "artillery", and etc and see how they all are weapons are arms are ordnance.

DogBonz

Johnson's Dictionary defines "gun as follows:

"The general name for firearms; the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire."

Just so you know, "shot" is defined as "the missive weapon emitted by any instrument".

"Missive" in this context is defined as "used at distance".​

To touch upon the question of whether having to pay for arms is an infringement, yes, it would be if Congress were to charge you for one being provided to you in accordance with Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. Buying an arm from X Arms Company is not an infringement. A tax charged on the purchase, keeping, or bearing of arms by the Union, a state, county, city, town or any other political subdivision of the foregoing would be an infringement, and are infringements right now wherever those taxes are levied upon the sale, transfer, keeping, or bearing of arms.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.

 

[charon]

I have read that post Woody. All of those definitions are from this Johnson's dictionary, correct?

No dictionary so vast and comprehensive is so thoroughly permeated with the individuality of its compiler. What required an academy in other nations was performed in eighteenth-century England by a single self-styled “harmless drudge” over a period of a mere nine years.

Basically a hobby project by one man in London. An excellent and interesting work, no doubt. But noted pro gun scholar David Kopel, prefers the Websters US version I have already posted several times that has a much more detailed description:

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.

Which gets us back to the point that if arms was considered to be all weapons, including rifles and cannon, then why do military documents of the day seem to regularly separate cannons/artillery from arms in their references?

...Cannon, Arms & Ammunition
...our magazines of Stores, Arms & Artillery
...a large supply of powder, arms, heavy cannon, and several other essential articles in your Department

And why don't they reference rifles if they are just trying to be more specific. Maybe it was common knowledge, as Websters points out, that arms was known to: "consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

Again, do any of the main pro 2nd scholars or organizations accept that broad of a definition?

If you are going to ever fly through the heavy flack of trying to get destructive devices neutered you probably need a lot more than Johnson's Dictionary to go on. Look how long its taken with collective vs. individual with reams of support material for the individual rights position.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Same reason so many people called a revolver a "Colt" for so long, a long rifle a "musket" even though it was a rifle, etc. People often use words differently than their formal definition. Saying "arms" instead of "small arms" saved time and ink (writing was more difficult then remember) when it was clear it meant small arms in context. You're taking these examples out of context and applying it to the Second Amendment, which used the formal broader definition. All the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be interpreted with the correct formal definition of the time, not what someone might have commonly used in everyday speech or letter writing. There is no reason to believe the writers meant such a narrow definition when arms was defined as any weapon or armor.