Home > The Main Room > The Okie Corral > 2nd Amendment: Definition of the right to bear "Arms"

2nd Amendment: Definition of the right to bear "Arms"

  1. deleted******
     
  2. I don't disagree, but good luck finding a consensus on that.
     
  3. 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
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. It also says "bear".
     
  6. It also says that. Try to interpret that. Quite frankly any weapon could be considered dangerous
     
  7. Yep, and the Vietnamese had the new weapon of a liberal media that gave them the technological advantage!
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. "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.
     
  10. Interesting definition but one that could be logically challenged in a court of law IMO. Makes a heck of a bumper sticker though :supergrin:

    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.
     
  11. :rofl::rofl:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. 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."
     
  13. 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?
     
  14. 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.


    [​IMG]
     
  15. 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. :dunno:

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

    [​IMG]

    I am not OK with that.



    :tongueout:



    And for the record nobody is using Bazookas anymore :supergrin:
     
  16. Well, it says "arms"...nothing else you wrote there is true, but it does say "arms.":upeyes:
     
  17. 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?
     
  18. Oh I would too. :supergrin:

    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. :)
     
  19. 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.