I can’t find anything to support that in the dictionary I’m using (1785, A Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson). The only definition of ‘arms’ which applies directly to weapons is the first. Examples of use in context omitted due to formatting difficulty:
Let’s assume for a minute you are correct.
Knowing the knee jerk responses we get currently, in regards to gun ownership/bans/regulations etc, how would you stop the ownership of guns from being a political stepchild whereas the laws change every time there is a leadership change in Congress/Pres? Or do you not see that as a big possibility? With the loss of the second amendment, what do you suppose would happen if the government attempted an outright ban?
No, you have not defended yourself-- At best you’ve avenged yourself, and at worst you’ve committed murder. If you wait until there is a clear threat to your life before shooting, then your attacker has already shot you. His trigger finger is just as fast as yours, you’re reacting to him, and it’s a lot harder to instantly incapacitate someone than it is to mortally wound them. And if you don’t wait until there is a clear threat to your life before shooting, then you’re the aggressor.
As for disarming criminals, that’s easy. Disarm everyone, and the criminals will end up disarmed, too. Sure, they’ll still try to get weapons, and a very small number of them will succeed, but where are they going to get them from? They won’t be able to just buy them directly from a licensed gun dealer, because the licensed gun dealers would be out of business. They won’t be able to buy them from a pawn shop that got them from a law-abiding citizen pawning it, because the law-abiding citizens won’t be pawning them. They won’t be able to steal them from law-abiding citizens, because again, they wouldn’t have them. They would be able to buy or steal them from other criminals, but that doesn’t last forever: Guns eventually break, or get lost, or get confiscated by police, and so over time the number of guns “in the wild” would dwindle to near nothing.
Yes, I want at least parity between me and the criminals, but which parity? If the criminals have guns, I’m in danger, and if they don’t, I’m in less danger, even regardless of whether I have a gun, too.
For most people handing over a wallet is the only logical end to a mugging even if armed but do you carry large amounts of money or do you have a violent ex who is stalking you?
I am guessing you are not a 98 pound female.
Can you show where gun control has reduced the number of guns held by criminals? How do you claim that only a small number would have them.
You would need to restrict not just the borders, but collect all arms and restrict the means of production.
Firearms are quite simple devices and is is fairly trivial to manufacturer one and even easier to smuggle.
You can still be robbed at knifepoint. It is still a life threatening situation. And it would be better to respond with a gun to a knife wielding assailant.
Regarding self-defense, especially in a robbery situation, a victim can easily get off the first shot or shots. It’s not about being quick on the draw. Armed robbery is one of the stupidest jobs to make a living at. The robber REQUIRES you to reach into your pocket or wallet. In a flash you can have a gun right in their face firing off as many shots as is necessary to stop the threat.
Of course you can just hand over your money and hope that you or someone you’re with doesn’t get shot anyway because the robber is a scumbag. Some of us would rather not take that gamble.
I am not ignoring this post but I will not have access to the documents to show where in the context of the militia arms were weapons that were carried.
You do have that right. It is enshrined within the Declaration of Independence as a right to life. There is no conceivable situation in which the State could deny you a right to buy food or water without due process.
While I can agree the constitution would be useless in case of revolution, revolution would not happen, because a would be dictator would know he’d immediately be faced with millions of armed insurgents.
We may not have tanks, but having guns would hardly be useless in a rebellion. As both history and current events show, insurgency isn’t the easiest thing to deal with, especially one on the scale of the United States. We’re talking about millions if not tens of millions of armed insurgents versus a maximum of 1 million soldiers, and that is only assuming the national guard for whatever reason ally themselves to the federal government. Sure, numbers aren’t everything, they have the advantage technologically, but quantity has a quality of its own. Also, even if guns were useless, would they be more useless than no guns?
Well, I’d have to say I agree with you there. The 2nd Amendment allows the possession of firearms. It does not say how quickly you are allowed to have one, or what type, and I believe it is our best interests to regulate accordingly and fill in those gaps with out own legislation. They can take away availability of assault weapons, they can mandate a 6 month waiting period, they can mandate mandatory background checks. None of that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment, because at the end of the day people still are allowed firearms. People may not like it but it is certainly constitutional.
the DoI is not the Constitution and is never used to uphold or strike down a law.
The feds can and do regulate agricultural products. The can’t outlaw the sale of handguns, but they could outlaw the sale of potatoes. There is no right eat potatoes in the Constitution.
Can you cite any precedents in that regard, where the government has banned foodstuffs wholesale for purposes other than drug enforcement (to preclude the “people eat marijuana and wormwood” argument)? I can give you examples of firearms bans, not that you need to see them because they’re fairly well-known.
Well I don’t know, I don’t really think it should be.
However I can certainly see the practical rationale in not wanting hanguns banned in that the handgun is the quintessential self defense weapon. It can be easily carried, is cheap, and doesn’t over penetrate. While I can see that what makes it a good self defense weapon also makes it a good tool for crime I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to ban it. A baseball bat is great for violent crime, I don’t think it should be banned though.
I don’t need a precedent. The interstate commerce clause allows the feds to regulate anything they want that isn’t otherwise protected in the constitution and that constitutes interstate commerce.
So show that they have done so. A made-up hypothetical about a foodstuff does not compare to the historical reality of gun bans.
Why should one be protected and not the other? The reason is obvious, and it always has been. Running in circles trying to find reasons to dismiss that does not change that simple reality.
