definition of arms?

I've been following some of the discussions on gun control, but not taking part as I don't come from, or live in, a generally armed society.

However, over a few beers, a question came up which I thought maybe someone on here might be able to answer.

As I understand it, you have the right to bear "arms"… are arms defined in the constitution? Do you have the right to bear incendiaries
, or nuclear or biological weapons?

Where are "arms" defined?

Clearly, you have the right to mount two bear arms in your living room. That's all.


:-D

Amendment II

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.

I'm not anti-gun, but it seems like you'd almost have to also look at what exactly defines a "well regulated militia". Is there a distinction between a "militia" and "the people"? If so, does the act of procuring a gun automatically amount to membership in said militia? The whole thing seems a bit ambiguous.

Originally Posted by ApexPredatorBoids

I'm not anti-gun, but it seems like you'd almost have to also look at what exactly defines a "well regulated militia". Is there a distinction between a "militia" and "the people"? If so, does the act of procuring a gun automatically amount to membership in said militia? The whole thing seems a bit ambiguous.

It's not ambiguous at all. I'm not going to bother with all the quotes from the founding fathers or anything else restated multiple times.

I will state this, after reading the drafts, original sources, available records of debates regarding the Bill Of Rights, there is no doubt.

This country won its freedom, drafted a Constitution and could not get the states to agree to ratify for four years because of their distrust of a all powerful government.

The States came up with hundreds of points and were able to define these very few.

The Bill Of Rights was added because the federalist couldn't ratify the Constitution. The tin foil hat people didn't trust a government that wouldn't spell it out. The federalist thought all of this was silly and mostly common sense. The people demanded these rights spelled out to protect INDIVIDUAL liberty.

They were written in a theme and as a whole.

So let's look at the FIRST

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Today all you hear about the First is it protects "Free Speech". That seems to be a given by all. Left, Right, doesn't matter. They all agree. First Amendment reaffirms the individual liberty of free speech.

How about the Third or Fourth?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No one argues that these weren't about individual liberties. NO ONE.
These are individual liberties demanded by the people or they were not going to ratify this Constitution, period!

Next, Fifth and Sixth

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, Individual Liberty guaranteed to every person.

So far the anti-federalist, the States and a Federalist "Madison" came up with these first amendments out of the hundreds of concerns to address the liberty of the people.

Some would have you believe that every RIGHT but the second one on the list
?was about individual liberties. Why would that be? Why would they do that? They didn't!

Anyone, ... Anyone, who states The Second Amendment does not refer to individual liberty and the right to arms is ignorant or a liar trying to rewrite History.

The First Amendment wasn't freedom for religion if you belong to the church or a group of churches. It was freedom of religion for The INDIVIDUAL.

The freedom of speech wasn't just for representatives elected by the states or for people that belonged to certain groups. IT was freedom of speech for The INDIVIDUAL.

The Fourth didn't protect certain peoples houses or only State Houses and possessions. It was suppose to protect Every Single Persons Houses and Possessions. The Individual

Everyone agrees with this.

The Second didn't guarantee rights of arms to just the militia but to the people. The Individual just as every single other concern by those who would not ratify the Constitution without these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Just as you did not have to belong to a church for religious freedom or require you to belong to a group to have your freedom of speech you did not have to belong to anything to bear arms.

So, anyone who thinks that a group of people who would not sign our new Constitution without these protections for individual liberty, sat down with hundreds of concerns, agreed on ten, wrote them and decide to make the Second not apply to a individual but to a collective body is a revisionist.

"Arms" have always been "weapons". To understand the specifics of "weapons" in our context, one has to think about the times when the Bill of Rights and Constitution were designed. At that time, "arms" were weapons of common use by both soldiers and civilians - muzzle loading handguns, rifles and shotguns.

The idea of guaranteeing absolutely no government infringement upon the keeping and bearing of arms was that designers of the Constitution understood the danger of a government being able to disarm its "subjects" (yes, "subjects", "citizens" have arms). History is full of such situations, and none lead to freedom and liberty for the masses.

The other important concept was that the population had the same (state of the art) weaponry as the military, in order that the armed citizens have the means to join in to help protect the country (militia), and in order that the armed citizenry resist attempts of the government to subjugate the citizens.

At the time this document was drafted, the biggest weapons were blackpowder cannon. Weapons have changed, the imperative has not.

Here are some notable quotes at the George Mason University website by the designers of the Constitution and its amendments that help put some of the question into context. :
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

While a good citizen should always have personal weaponry comparable to the troops in order to participate in the active defense of the country and to defend himself adequately against any credible threat, there is already a clear legal limit as to the amount of firepower the Average Joe can wield.


First, we have caliber limitations. Anything over .50 caliber (a bore size of .500"-.510") with rifling is considered by law a "destructive device". Destructive devices are subject to the NFA of 1934, our very first infringement by our masters. This law created a "tax" that required background checks to pay and a national registration system to begin amassing the names of law abiding citizens. In order to have a firearm with a bore diameter of more than .50", one must submit to local background checks, approval by their local chief LEO, further investigation by the ATF & FBI, fingerprinting, photographing and a "tax:" of $200.00. It costs about $50.00 for the prints, pics and background check preliminary to paying this "tax". When you are approved (months later), you get an actual tax stamp, like that found on a bottle of liquor, that is worth 10 years of prison time if you lose it. Good luck. Luckily, shotguns are exempted...for now. No more rifled cannons without tax/registration.


Then, our rate of fire is heavily restricted, also as of 1934. Nothing is allowed that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger, which is what defines a machine gun and true assault rifle. EVERYTHING out listed at "automatic" that one buys in the local gun shop cash & carry is actually SEMI-automatic, and only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. Machine guns are legal to have, but again quite restricted and require exactly the same procedure/expense/delay/tax stamp as a "destructive device". AR-15s are semi-automatic and only fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like many handguns, shotguns and other rifles, yet are labeled "assault rifles" to imply full auto capability, hence extra deadliness. In short, if your semi-auto malfs and you get a burst, you're looking at 10 years in federal prison and $10k in fines, plus legal fees.


We also have (lack of) noise restrictions. To own a suppressor ("silencer") is also regulated as per the NFA 1934, and also requires the same tax stamp as full auto and destructive devices. In much of Europe, it is considered rather bad manners to shoot unsuppressed and create a disturbance. Here in the US, suppressors have been villianized and treated as if they are somehow evil. Silly, I think, yet I jumped through the hoops and got a suppressor for my .22 rifle so I can target practice and control pests quietly.


Then, there is actually a rule about how short it can be. A "sawed off shotgun" (or rifle) is again illegal since 1934 without the special tax stamp, although some variations may be registered as "AOW" (any other weapon) and the tax stamp is only $5.00 and muych depend on whether it started life out short, or got short later. Stupid stuff, especially when one considers the firepower available with modern handguns in much more compact packages.

If I want to shorten my .22 rifle barrel below 16" (to keep it from being 7 feet long with the suppressor installed) and install a suppressor, it takes TWO tax stamps; one for the short barreled rifle and one for the suppressor: $200.00 + $200.00 + TWO complete background checks...at the same time...Yeah, that takes a bite out of crime... Do it in the privacy of your own home without the background checks and taxes, go to jail for twenty years (10 years per offense).

Something to remember with this "tax" and registration scheme is that at the time this law was passed (1934) the amount of $200.00 was a staggering sum. These days $200.00 is just a quick stabbing pain, then gone. Back then, it was TWO MONTH'S salary. The average factory worker made 58 cents an hour. The staggering amount of money to the Average Joe was considered to be a deterrent, rather than an actual legitimate fee of some sort. So, the .gov had its cake and enjoyed it too: They did not have Constitutional authority to outright "ban" guns (or even regulate them), but, they found a way to limit legal possession and regulate them so that no one could afford it.


There is also a limit on how you get it. As of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the .guv took an active hand in tracking and recording all firearms purchases, plus the government exercised a (sorta) legal opinion about who may and may not own a gun. In the wake of the JFK execution, the NRA supported this travesty. No longer could the Average Joe buy guns through the mail. Still can't. Can't buy guns off the internet - never could, gotta go through a dealer if they cross states line. Private sales, between two law abiding citizens, could still take place without government intrusion, but this has become limited in some ways since then. This registration system was not supposed to be a 'registration system', but only a temporary way to track sales and ensure bad guys didn't buy guns at the sport shop, which they didn't/don't anyway. These days, the Form 4473 (yellow form), originally destined for destruction after ten years, is immortal.


There is a limit on how you make or modify stuff. Up until 1986, when Prez Reagan (republican devil) signed the FOPA, which also made it illegal to make your own machine gun anymore. Used to be, you could jump through the hoops, pay your money, get your prints and pics taken like a criminal, stand in the corner for six months, then receive your blessed tax stamp as the official "OK" to drill the one hole required to make your semi-auto AR-15 a select fire (full auto) M-16, a true assault rifle.

In fact, the 1986 ban on machine guns meant that no machine gun made since 1986 can be transferred between law abiding citizens, which artificially drove the price of a Colt M16A1 from $750.00 in 1986 to its current value of nearly $20,000.00.


Explosives are heavily regulated, in that a federal and local explosives handlers permit is required to store or transport explosives, along with safe storage provisions and liability insurance. There are exceptions, such as the allowance to mix and use explosives on the farm for stump and rock removal, or like the binary exploding targets (Tannerite), but the exceptions call for mixing on the spot and immediate use, with no storage or transportation allowed.

I don't have any facts, but I would reckon nuclear devices would fall under explosives to and also require special licensing.

Incendiaries, at least the hand held stuff, are not heavily regulated. If something explodes and creates fire, it's still an explosive, otherwise...its just an incendiary. As far as I know, one may legally buy a flamethrower and clear the sidewalk (I HATE f'n weeds) at will. "Signal" flares and launchers are available in several sizes, and any can create a nasty fire. No real use in regulating incendiary compounds, almost everything burns.... Anyone who can trace their genealogy in the interwebs can figure out stuff like hillbilly napalm and ghetto thermite.

As a side note, one can buy incendiary and tracer ammunition, but in calibers below 50, its more novelty and joke than an actual game changer.

As far as biologicals go, I have no idea the regulations involved, but here is a short article on it. I would probably limit my own biological warfare to baked beans and the occasional dutch oven.

LOL Dennis, I see I'm not the only one that got started on this...

I see. So, the whole argument is based on its application to The Individual being strongly contextually inferred, although not explicitly stated? And the questioning of that inference's validity is what defines a "revisionist"? Again, I'm not against gun ownership, but it seems that the implication vs. statement aspect, however small it may seem, could possibly leave it open to interpretation. Especially if it were somehow viewed as a stand-alone piece, and not as part of a themed whole.

Generally speaking, I believe nuclear weapons are not considered as "arms" at all. They are political weapons of a national level in the sense that any legitimate use of such weapons normally requires the direct approval from the head of state to be used under ANY circumstances. There is no blank check prior approval that authorizes the use of nuclear weapons without the direct input and approval from the highest levels of government at the time of perceived need.

As for what weapons or arms a private individual could actually own, well tell me, what COULD a private individual own prior to 1934 without having to pay a contrived tax? What weapons or arms COULD a private individual own prior to the law implemented in 1968 that neutered that right?

What is different about one side of the dividing line before and after those above mentioned dates and the other side? Besides the fact that we had more freedom before than we did afterwards, of course.

And although extremely destructive devices were readily available prior to those dates, how commonly were they used in illegal activities? Excluding the legendary movie screen favorite of the "tommy gun", of course.

Heck, I remember seeing ads in magazines such as popular mechanics when I was a kid for things like Lahti 20mm anti-tank cannons. How many of them were used in a crime back then?

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

It's not ambiguous at all. I'm not going to bother with all the quotes from the founding fathers or anything else restated multiple times.

I will state this, after reading the drafts, original sources, available records of debates regarding the Bill Of Rights, there is no doubt.

This country won its freedom, drafted a Constitution and could not get the states to agree to ratify for four years because of their distrust of a all powerful government.

The States came up with hundreds of points and were able to define these very few.

The Bill Of Rights was added because the federalist couldn't ratify the Constitution. The tin foil hat people didn't trust a government that wouldn't spell it out. The federalist thought all of this was silly and mostly common sense. The people demanded these rights spelled out to protect INDIVIDUAL liberty.

They were written in a theme and as a whole.

So let's look at the FIRST

Today all you hear about the First is it protects "Free Speech". That seems to be a given by all. Left, Right, doesn't matter. They all agree. First Amendment reaffirms the individual liberty of free speech.

How about the Third or Fourth?

No one argues that these weren't about individual liberties. NO ONE.
These are individual liberties demanded by the people or they were not going to ratify this Constitution, period!

Next, Fifth and Sixth

Again, Individual Liberty guaranteed to every person.

So far the anti-federalist, the States and a Federalist "Madison" came up with these first amendments out of the hundreds of concerns to address the liberty of the people.

Some would have you believe that every RIGHT but the second one on the list
?was about individual liberties. Why would that be? Why would they do that? They didn't!

Anyone, ... Anyone, who states The Second Amendment does not refer to individual liberty and the right to arms is ignorant or a liar trying to rewrite History.

The First Amendment wasn't freedom for religion if you belong to the church or a group of churches. It was freedom of religion for The INDIVIDUAL.

The freedom of speech wasn't just for representatives elected by the states or for people that belonged to certain groups. IT was freedom of speech for The INDIVIDUAL.

The Fourth didn't protect certain peoples houses or only State Houses and possessions. It was suppose to protect Every Single Persons Houses and Possessions. The Individual

Everyone agrees with this.

The Second didn't guarantee rights of arms to just the militia but to the people. The Individual just as every single other concern by those who would not ratify the Constitution without these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Just as you did not have to belong to a church for religious freedom or require you to belong to a group to have your freedom of speech you did not have to belong to anything to bear arms.

So, anyone who thinks that a group of people who would not sign our new Constitution without these protections for individual liberty, sat down with hundreds of concerns, agreed on ten, wrote them and decide to make the Second not apply to a individual but to a collective body is a revisionist.

I support the right for people to have 'arms', I also support limits on what firearms can be had as well as mandatory waiting periods/background checks.

Sorry if my post is all over the place

From Daily Show: Coming for Your Guns - President Obama issues executive orders aimed at controlling assault weapons (5:39min)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-for-your-guns
"first they came for our guns and I said nothing, because they really didn't"

from Colbert report: Obama's Gun Grab - King Gun Snatcher the Magnificent (2:52min)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...ama-s-gun-grab

Wanted to share an interesting post my dad had made on another forum that may be relevant to the discussion:

Besides the fact that no one needs such weapons for any legitimate purpose, the idea that the Second Amendment was included so that citizens could "protect themselves from the government" is a recent twist on actual history and is incorrect. This idea stems from Madison's statements defending the Amendment to Congress in 1787 when he said that armed citizens are necessary to "defend the Republic" against foreign invaders or against "States who would oppose Federal power." So the real intent that has led to this modern misinterpretation was to defend the Federal Government against rogue factions in the various States - like resisting the Texas independence movement, for example. The other reason the Second Amendment (actually originally the Fourth, but the first two were shot down) was so that slave states like Virginia would vote for ratification, as it protected the rights of their slave-capture posses to remain armed even if abolitionist factions in their States tried to disarm them. It protected the rights of slave catchers to ride around toting weapons.