In 'right to keep and bear arms', what is an 'arm'?

[NoirFan]

A question which has interested me for a long time is what kind of weapons exactly are covered under the second amendment. I've read here and there that an 'arm' is defined as any man-portable weapon, and that there are writings from the founding fathers to back this up. Can a constitutional scholar help me out with this? Anyway if this is true, ownership of all semiauto and full auto rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns are protected, which I mostly agree with. And something like an ICBM is not covered, which in my opinion is a good idea.

What I'm interested in is the murky area in between which contains grenades, mines, mortars, and all the shoulder-fired explosives. All are man-portable, and all have a lot of destructive potential. In our ideal 2A world, anybody would be able to walk into a gun show and pick up a $400 RPG-7 without a background check. Is the safety risk of having large unregulated numbers of these weapons floating around worth it for the just-in-case scenario of a tyrannical government? What is tyranny anyway? Is a hillbilly rocketing the town hall over zoning laws a right or wrong use of the 2A?

As a side note, anti-gun people love to say stuff like, "If the government is coming with tanks and jets, what good will your assault weapon do?" It's kind of an asinine argument but there is some truth to it. If the true purpose of the 2A is to fight a tyrannical power, then I would guess 90% of the weapons in our gun safes are fairly useless. The Iraq invasion gives us a good look at what is really needed to run an insurgency: a disposable pistol for assassination, a toolkit for torture, and bombmaking know-how. All currently unregulated and easy to obtain.

 

[chevyman097]

Where can you walk into the average gun store and buy "assault weapons" these days? anyways if anyone is looking to stock up on some assault banana clips I have ton hit me up.

 

[Ringolevio]

The Founders' answer to "what kind of arms?" was "all the terrible weaponry of the soldier".

Having citizens own selective-fire weapons, RPGs, Claymores, even a tank on the front lawn would not be a problem so long as the minute anybody so much as threatened his neighbor with them, he'd go directly to jail -- no plea bargains, no probation.

 

[RhinoDefense]

Traditionally, (ie 18th century when the BoR was written) arms meant any firearm capable of being carried by one person. Others, such as cannon and punt guns, were ordnance.

We've got very few stabbings compared with the number of people that carry a knife every day. It's not what you have, it's what you're doing with it.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

anyways if anyone is looking to stock up on some assault banana clips I have ton hit me up.

What's an assault banana and why would you want to clip them together? Might get mushed.

 

[chevyman097]

Quote:
anyways if anyone is looking to stock up on some assault banana clips I have ton hit me up.
What's an assault banana and why would you want to clip them together? Might get mushed.

Im not totally sure, but im positive they come from that same place you buy "assault weapons".

 

[CapnMac]

Well, I find Tench Coxe compelling on the issue:

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people

Amen.

Madison and Jefferson were slightly less histrionic, but the militiaman of the day was expected to be familiar with military arms and tactics. To include things like bayonets, spontoons, halberds, and the like. Massed grenadiers had passed out of fashion by the end of the 18th century, but it was still a "terrible implement of a soldier." As were light artillery pieces, too.

 

[NoirFan]

The Founders' answer to "what kind of arms?" was "all the terrible weaponry of the soldier".

Can you tell me which document that quote comes from?

Thanks

 

[CapnMac]

For the Tench Coxe quote above:

Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1788

 

[Hardware]

Artillery pieces were commonly owned by private citizens. Especially those involved in merchant trading. Every merchant ship was armed with several guns for self defense.

 

[NickW]

NoirFan, please read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/705263/posts

 

[fpgt72]

I don't know....My bear is armed

 

[AlexanderA]

"Arms" are any weapons that are militarily useful. That's why "sporting purpose" criteria stand the 2nd Amendment directly on its head. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "sporting purposes."

 

[Zombiphobia]

the term 'arms' is in reference to weapons. Firearms, swords, etc..

 

[HOWARD J]

An arm is something that has fingers on the end of it---when the middle finger is extended vertically it could possibly mean that someone does not agree with you.
Or it could be a weapon of some kind or it could be--forget it.

 

[thefamcnaj]

^^

 

[Ringolevio]

The wisdom (and reverence) of the Founders

AlexanderA:

"Arms" are any weapons that are militarily useful. That's why "sporting purpose" criteria stand the 2nd Amendment directly on its head. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "sporting purposes."

Pre-cisely! Nor does the Second Amendment have anything to do with hunting or collecting. It can even be argued that the RKBA is not even about protecting one's home and family from crime.

All of those are merely ancillary benefits to the intent and purpose of a well-armed and proficient citizenry: To have the means to deter and resist government tyranny.

But please point out to others, whenever you have the opportunity, that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not rights "granted" by our government; they are God-given rights which the government pledges to honor and protect.

And one doesn't have to be a "believer" to benefit from the concept of "God-given rights"; even atheists benefit from this concept.

Those who want to take God out of the equation are left with no power higher than government. And if our rights come from government, then government can just as easily take them away.

 

[effengee]

Militia Arms

If you would believe the sheer stupidity of some people, it would mean a flintlock musket, a pistol of the same type, and a saber.
By that same logic, one must only redress the government from atop an old soap box or with quill and vellum

I consider "arms" to mean anything that can be used as a weapon during a time of such dire need as a zombie apocalypse or the next revolution...
Should common citizens be able to own a bazooka or a tank? YUP! This is America after all. Should criminals be prosecuted harder if they use a weapon to commit a crime? YES! Should I be punished because of the actions of criminals? NO!
History shows that having the best tool for the job is the easiest way to complete the task, and that modern (after 1910 military arms are simply one of the best tools for the job. People seem to forget that in 1776, flintlock muskets and rifles WERE the most modern military assault weapons of their day, and most militia units were armed with what amounted to grandpa's squirrel gun, what I fondly call "ye olde mantel hanger" a weapon more often employed to put food on the table than to defend such lofty ideals as freedom and justice...

My arsenal includes military and sporting firearms, bows and arrows, swords, daggers, knives, throwing blades/stars, blowguns and slingshots. I have a kitchen full of edged weapons, and a garage full of improvised arms; scythes, sledgehammers, pickaxe, chainsaw, Chevy truck with snowplow, etc...

If, and I mean one gigantic if, there was ever a bona-fide militia roll call, and again, another giant if here, I was to volunteer for said militia service, I would bring an AK-47 clone, a Colt .45 ACP, a truckload of ammo, and the very first Scottish Claymore I ever bought, for both sentimental and practical reasons. But this is just me, my wife and kids would bring more, and that's just my 2 pennies...

 

[Ringolevio]

Squirrel guns and a musical history lesson

effengee:

People seem to forget that in 1776, flintlock muskets and rifles WERE the most modern military assault weapons of their day, and most militia units were armed with what amounted to grandpa's squirrel gun, what I fondly call "ye olde mantel hanger" a weapon more often employed to put food on the table than to defend such lofty ideals as freedom and justice...

Yup, those "squirrel guns" were the equivalent of today's .22 rifles. Our forefathers went to war with what they had. Nevertheless, utilizing skill and superior tactics, they put those squirrel guns to good use, as they did in the War of 1812:

Old Hick'ry said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and really gave 'em...WELL...

[From "The Battle of New Orleans", a little history lesson set to music (by Jimmy Driftwood, a schoolteacher) that was a big hit for Johnny Horton back in 1959, when I was in the 6th or 7th grade (back when American History was still being taught). "Historical" songs by Johnny Horton also helped us learn about the Alaska Gold Rush and the sinking of the Bismarck.]

 

[JustinJ]

Those who want to take God out of the equation are left with no power higher than government.

That is a "either or" logical fallacy. Sort of like believing that by disproving evolution one can prove god. The whole point of democracy is that the ultimate authority is the people. God has nothing to do with it.

And one doesn't have to be a "believer" to benefit from the concept of "God-given rights"; even atheists benefit from this concept.

This is true when one understands that references to god are not always about a man in the clouds but instead an abstract concept that is beyond the scope of this post. Jefferson certainly was not talking about such a being when he said "god".



In 1939, US v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled the second amendment ensures the right to own only weapons that a member of a militia might use including rifles, shotguns, and handguns but that short barreled shotguns were not protected while wrongly claiming they had never been used in any militia organization.

The Uniform Militia act of 1792 stated that every militia member shall provide his own arms and specified the following requirement: "...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet, belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therin to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges..." That could arguably be what they reffered to as arms at the time. I would wonder if the notion of an individual owning a cannon was even a consideration at the time given the number of people required to operate.

Regardless, if the founders did mean that "arms" meant any weapon of the time it is insane and impractical to say that should apply today unchanged unless one believes we should be all be allowed to keep a nuke in our gun rooms. Also, if it was meant to apply to any weapon a soldier could carry I would hope nobody would try and argue they should be allowed to own a Davy Crockett. Weapons of mass destruction did not exist when the 2nd amendment was penned. I am in no way implying the second amendment should not apply today but just acknowledging that the issue is not as simple as some like to try and make it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Post #12: More people need to exercise their right to keep and arm bears.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

In my opinion, "arms" are any device or implement that can be used to cause harm to another human being. Be it a sharp stick, sword, rifle, vehicle mounted belt-fed minigun or whatever.

As such, I wish there were an organization to fight for the 2A outside of firearms. Many places put restrictions on pepper spray and stun guns, both of which are arms. Some laws even mention "directed energy" weapons. Currently they mean stun guns, but in the future could be interpreted to be other arms. Laws mentioning energy weapons I think have the potential to block We The People from the next generation of arms whenever energy storage devices become sufficiently advanced to make a portable laser weapon practical.

 

[kludge]

A question which has interested me for a long time is what kind of weapons exactly are covered under the second amendment.

Until they pass a constitutional amendment limiting the scope, all of them.

Traditionally, (ie 18th century when the BoR was written) arms meant any firearm capable of being carried by one person. Others, such as cannon and punt guns, were ordnance.

Citizens have owned cannons since the dawn of the republic.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I've often wanted to reply to "freedom of the press" with "what's a press"
You know, that Gutenberg thing or do modern high speed laser printers count?

I guess my point is that in my mind it's the principle, not the physical objects.

The base underlying concept is that a normal, law-abiding, moral, citizen will do no unnecessary harm regardless of owning a pocket knife, shotgun, RPG, or what have you.

Or to put it another way. The real thing in question isn't the device, it's how much trust is put in the citizen

 

[ErikO]

Simple, anything that is not ordinance.

Since 1932 it means 'everything under .51 caliber, without prior approval of some outside agency that doesn't want you to have anything under .51 caliber either'.