GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2013, 11:22   #1
TrustMyG23
Senior Member
 
TrustMyG23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 211
2nd Amendment: Definition of the right to bear "Arms"

deleted******

Last edited by TrustMyG23; 02-24-2013 at 08:54..
TrustMyG23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:26   #2
jdeere_man
CLM Number 26
Charter Lifetime Member
 
jdeere_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 3,538
I don't disagree, but good luck finding a consensus on that.
__________________
Be weary of a summit that begins with sharing bread; for the sated man is at his weakest.
jdeere_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:29   #3
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,823
I agree. The Miller decision in the 1930s said as much by subjecting sawed off shotguns to NFA because they were not in use by the military.

However, when the amendment is frequently misquoted that we "...have the right to bare arms...". :-(


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:59   #4
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,394
The wording has been read many ways by folks on both sides. Not sure it will ever be "settled" what the "meaning" is. Some folks think it means what you do, other point to things like "well regulated" as meaning it speaks of some type of "organized" control over firearm ownership.

I think the 2nd As beauty and it's curse is it's brevity when it comes to debating it.

I do not think the 2nd A is as all inclusive as some on here but I do think it is much more inclusive than some in America. The introduction of "hunting rights" into the debate and how widespread that is used in mainstream America today is pretty amazing to me.

This debate is not going to end anytime soon.

Last edited by Ruggles; 02-23-2013 at 12:00..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:12   #5
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,769
It also says "bear".
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:15   #6
WT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,373
I suggest reading the Heller decision. Justice Scalia describes what 'arms' means.

There is a difference between 'arms' and 'ordnance'.



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

Last edited by WT; 02-23-2013 at 12:17..
WT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:52   #7
jdeere_man
CLM Number 26
Charter Lifetime Member
 
jdeere_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 3,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT View Post
I suggest reading the Heller decision. Justice Scalia describes what 'arms' means.

There is a difference between 'arms' and 'ordnance'.



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf
Quote:
finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
It also says that. Try to interpret that. Quite frankly any weapon could be considered dangerous
__________________
Be weary of a summit that begins with sharing bread; for the sated man is at his weakest.

Last edited by jdeere_man; 02-23-2013 at 12:52..
jdeere_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 12:55   #8
AsSeenOnTV
Senior Member
 
AsSeenOnTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: A liddo Northwest of you.....
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustMyG23 View Post
......... Anybody who has read a history book knows that most of the time there was a decisive battle in history the winner of that battle usually had a new improved weapon that gave them a technological advantage.
Yep, and the Vietnamese had the new weapon of a liberal media that gave them the technological advantage!
AsSeenOnTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 13:34   #9
CaptCave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
I agree. The Miller decision in the 1930s said as much by subjecting sawed off shotguns to NFA because they were not in use by the military.
And to get to that opinion, they had to completely ignore the fact that 'trench guns' were used in WW1.

My opinion is Miller should have never happened.
CaptCave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 14:48   #10
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


"Well regulated" means that the point of aim of the sights coincides with the point of impact of the bullet at the prescribed range. A well regulated militia is a group of citizen soldiers who can hit what they aim at.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 14:56   #11
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
"Well regulated" means that the point of aim of the sights coincides with the point of impact of the bullet at the prescribed range. A well regulated militia is a group of citizen soldiers who can hit what they aim at.
Interesting definition but one that could be logically challenged in a court of law IMO. Makes a heck of a bumper sticker though

The debate that is going on is not for the folks that are already decided on the matter on either side. No one is changing their mind in those two groups. It is the undecided that will decide it to a large degree. I think the "arguments to convince" need to be tailored towards them.

The other side does a better job than ours in many cases in my opinion. The whole "hunting" terminology trick has worked very well for them.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 14:56   #12
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
It also says "bear".


The Okie Corral
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:00   #13
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustMyG23 View Post
If you read the Amendment, it does not say anything about guns. It says "arms".
Yep.

Quote:
And it says that any weapon that is available for the military, that same weapon must be available to the people so that the people can always defend themselves against the government.
Nope. It doesn't say any of that.

Quote:
We should be able to have any weapon we want like grenades, bazooka's.....any weapon that exists...bombs, jet bombers, etc....

But nobody knows that fact.
"Nobody knows" because it's not a "fact".

I happen to pretty much agree with you, but I also know the difference between "what I wish was true" and "facts." What you state is not a "fact."
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:06   #14
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT View Post
I suggest reading the Heller decision. Justice Scalia describes what 'arms' means.

There is a difference between 'arms' and 'ordnance'.



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf
I read where he seems to be saying arms means anything you can hold in your arms. Is that your understanding of what he says? If so, do you agree with that position?

Seems like hand grenades, machine guns, and bazookas should be legal then. But no fighter jets, tanks, or battleships.

I don't know for sure, but I guess I'm ok with that. But we gotta do a better job locking up dangerous criminals because I wouldn't want them able to buy those things at the hardware store like the rest of us should be able to without background checks.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:06   #15
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,031
I agree. Just because a statement sounds really good does not mean it is a fact. Just because a statement we want to be a fact does not mean it is a fact. Just because we read some stuff we may not be on the same level as people who have advanced degrees and study, teach, and render judgement on Constitutional issues.


The Okie Corral
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.

Last edited by Bruce M; 02-23-2013 at 15:07..
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:09   #16
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Yep.



Nope. It doesn't say any of that.



"Nobody knows" because it's not a "fact".

I happen to pretty much agree with you, but I also know the difference between "what I wish was true" and "facts." What you state is not a "fact."
Root of the problem. People read the same words and come away with different meanings. Also why the founders put measures in place to be able to settle the disagreements as they occurred. Heck they could hardly agree on them as they wrote them so not sure why we should expect it to be any different now.

I am not in favor of a boundless 2nd A myself. Someday one of you guys would have your own Deathstar.

The Okie Corral

I am not OK with that.







And for the record nobody is using Bazookas anymore
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:12   #17
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustMyG23 View Post
If you read the Amendment, it does not say anything about guns. It says "arms". And it says that any weapon that is available for the military, that same weapon must be available to the people so that the people can always defend themselves against the government.
Well, it says "arms"...nothing else you wrote there is true, but it does say "arms."
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:28   #18
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
And for the record nobody is using Bazookas anymore
I most certainly would use Bazookas.

I was just out clanging the gong with my .44 magnum revolver. If legally allowed, I'd love to buy a WWII era bazooka, hopefully find some ammo, and shoot it out back, maybe blow up an old washing machine or something like that



___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:31   #19
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
I most certainly would use Bazookas.

I was just out clanging the gong with my .44 magnum revolver. If legally allowed, I'd love to buy a WWII era bazooka, hopefully find some ammo, and shoot it out back, maybe blow up an old washing machine or something like that



___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Oh I would too.

My dad carried one in the Marines back in the 50s. But the U.S. Military is not using them any more was my point.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 15:48   #20
stevemc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 464
If you think in the context of the times, arms were probably black powder actuated firearms. The "Government" they were concerned with was probably more the crown of England, and their laws concerning citizens rights than their newly formed union. I believe there was more national pride and willingness to fight common enemies, than fearful suspicion of the homeland government.
stevemc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
2nd amendment bear arms
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,089
356 Members
733 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42