definition of arms?

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others
dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the
world deprived the use of them..."

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?"

[b]
"... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
bear their private arms."


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms..."



"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and
others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion
of your walk."

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

OK, so separate points, thanks.

Not to carry this on to the point of futility, but it seems to me that the two parts are related in some way;the right to bear arms with the necessity of having a militia? What then IS the relationship?

Yes, in a way they are related, but bear in mind that the phrase eventually used in the Bill of Rights as the second line item was condensed from much larger statements involving BOTH a state militia and the right of individuals to bear arms. And in seeking brevity, points that meant something to the people of that time, have changed their meaning to the people of today. In short, "militia" and "every able-bodied American", pretty much meant the same thing, and not the "national guard" sort of GOVERNMENT controlled organization that some people wish to believe it refers to today. And "well regulated" was meant to say "the people" who practiced and were experienced with their arms so that they would be effective in their use. "Regulation" pretty much meant being able to control your weapon effectively enough to be able to hit your target. Not in the context of today implying that "the people" should be regulated in the manner of a body of people under the command and control of the very government that the Second Amendment was penned to try to protect us from. In effect, the states wanted BOTH a militia AND all able bodied Americans to be able to protect them from the fearsome powers they were granting the federal government, and they tried to cover them both in one amendment for expediency's sake in order to get ratification from all the states.

There is an interesting description of this struggle with the ratification of the Bill of Rights concerning the Second Amendment here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

And certainly "the people" being used in the phrasing of the Second Amendment means nothing different than that same term used in any other of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, where it is obviously intented to portray an INDIVIDUAL right rather than a collective one subject to any sort of controls that converts a "right", to a government controlled "privilege".

The Second Amendment had nothing at all to do about hunting or shooting Indians as some people will claim. To even think that such things were high on the list of concerns to the people creating the federal government after their bloody war with Great Britain is completely ludicrous to the extreme. These people were deathly afraid they were creating the fire underneath the frying pan that they had just jumped out of.

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 because the "colonies" had had enough of merry old England and wanted to dance to their own drummer. Of course, that took place while the war of independence was already swelling into motion, and which ended in 1783. After the smoke cleared, apparently the colonies were afraid that the necessary government they needed to create would become just another monster of their own creation when the US Constitution was signed in 1787. So they set about creating further restraints on the federal government that became known as the document called the Bill of Rights that was signed in 1789.

As to the purpose of the Bill of Rights:

In September 1789, the first Congress of the United States approved 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sent them to the states for ratification. The amendments were designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens, guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and exercise of religion; the right to fair legal procedure and to bear arms; and that powers not delegated to the federal government would be reserved for the states and the people.

Source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...nally-ratified

Obviously not all of the 12 amendments offered were ratified by all of the states, which left just the 10 that comprise that which we now know as the Bill of Rights.

Some people mistakenly believe that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to grant "the people" privileges that were under the purview and control of the federal government, but in truth, it is the exact opposite. The US Constitution was penned to itemize and detail EXACTLY which powers the new federal government was to have at it's disposal, to try to LIMIT the powers of this entity. The subsequent Bill of Rights was penned because the states FEARED this entity enough that they felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in being specific about the rights retained and belonging to the states and the people, that they wanted IN WRITING what basic undeniable and unalienable rights "the people" and the states had, that were NOT under the control of this new governing agency.

Of course, now more than 200 years later, we can see obviously that those documents did not go far enough to try to restrain the beast being created. And it becomes more and more obvious every day that the Second Amendment was their only hope of giving a means to "the people" to be able to truly be masters of their own fate, and have the ABILITY to say an emphatic NO to laws and regulations that a rogue federal government may try to perpetrate upon them to take away THEIR freedom in it's pursuit of more and more power over their lives. Why there are not more seismic tremors throughout the mid-atlantic region where our forefathers have to be spinning in their graves is beyond me.

Once freedom is gone in the USA, I believe the game is over for the entire world. Where else can people escape to in order to get the freedom that the settlers to this country originally came for? How can anyone escape a "New World Order" that wishes to have power over all of "the people" no matter where they live? What other country has the power to restore OUR freedom if OUR government becomes the "domestic enemy" that takes them away from us? And how long will THEIR freedom in THEIR countries survive after our fall? Do you really think an all powerful "new world order" is going to allow anyone to be exempt from their demands?

I guess if you make the prison walls far enough apart, and distract the people effectively from making any real effort to try to find and scale those walls, I suppose most people will never even know that they are in a prison.

Bravo Y'all !!
Great posting, warm fuzzy stuff of true Patriot beliefs

I`ve been out of email contact for a couple of weeks, but I`d like to thank you all for such detailed responses. I can certainly see that this is not nearly the simplistic situation I had imagined.
Many of us outside the U$ have had this presented to us as a hunting rights issue, and the logic of that did not add up.
While I personally remain someone who would rather not live in an armed society, I have very much appreciated the thought and time put into your explanations, and it`s given us a lot of material for discussion over here.
One of the things I can see is that, desirability or otherwise of having an armed population notwithstanding, once you HAVE created such a society, it is certainly extremely difficult to change that. You have shown me why people take this as such an incursion on their general rights.
Thanks for all responses.