# Limitations on Personal Armament **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998 "2001-08-30T20:42:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/61 "2001-09-06T05:06:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*ExTank wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > The reason these distinctions are necessary pertains to the difference between “arms” and “ordnance”. > > Not to mention the difference between “ordnance” and “ordinance.” 😉 \*\* Yeah I was wondering about that: I thought it might have been American spelling, and I perpetuated it. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/62 "2001-09-06T08:17:25Z")
Hiya, Dave… > [@](#): > > If the purpose is the continued sovereignty of each state, as xenophon seems to be saying (“Their utility was more along the lines of exerting states’ control over their own interests, rather than a protection against tyranny”), then that is a job for a state-appointed militia, not for private citizens. Could be. I’m not going to disagree with this. However, my own viewpoint sees the whole 2nd Amendment - as with ALL of the Bill of Rights - as being something for “The People”, not “The States” (what other Amendments deal with the States?). My reasons for saying this is because a State government can become tyrranical, too, as long as the Federal Gov’t climate allows it. What would be the point in protecting the people against abuses from one manifestation of government, but not another? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way. 😃 > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but by extension of this logic I think you are only entitled to be armed with muskets. What’s the difference? I can’t see why if you are going to draw “individually wielded weapons” from the amendment, you can just as validly limit it to “muskets and gunshot”. Using this same logic (and no, I’m not being sarcastic in calling it “logic”), it can be said that the “Freedom of Speech” can be limited simply to the spoken word… not writing, not TV, not the Internet, not art, not music, etc. etc. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure the security of a free state. This security can not be reasonably ensured with muskets and gunshot… neither from a possible tyrannical government, or from those individuals who would choose to break the law. Remember, maintaining security is two-fold in that sense. > [@](#): > > equally disregards the purpose, of fighting an enemy which may be equipped with ordnance. Possibly, but the civilian population is far larger than the military. I believe that the sheer numbers would balance things out. But that assumes “The Worst” - i.e. a tyrannical government has already seized control. At that point, expect the end of the world. No, the theory of “an armed populace is security against tyrrany” holds that if the population is strong, and armed, and informed, it will ensure that a tyrrannical government doesn’t arise in the first place. > [@](#): > > By my reading, within the 2nd amendment, American citizens have a right to bear such arms as to resist the army. But, you have no right to protect yourself from home intrusion using firearms. It is just as valid to say that you are “maintaining your freedom/security” by repelling a home invader. A person’s property is his own… when that property, and his life, are threatened, he is allowed to protect it. To say that the 2nd Amendment _only_ allows for protection from the government (as you are hinting at), or to say that the 2nd Amendment _only_ allows for home protection against individuals (as others have said in the past, scoffing at the notion of protection from tyrranny), or to say that the 2nd Amendment _only_ allows for a person to own hunting/sporting weapons (as still others have stated)… are all equally folly. The 2nd Amendment allows for _all_ of these things. Just because it only has ONE modifier - maintaining a free state - that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also allow for other uses. “Shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/63 "2001-09-06T08:18:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah I was wondering about that: I thought it might have been American spelling, and I perpetuated it. Don’t feel bad. We Americans have sticky “I” buttons on our keyboards. Don’t ask why… you don’t wanna know. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/64 "2001-09-06T10:27:56Z")
Hiya **Spoofe** > [@](#): > > Just because it only has ONE modifier - maintaining a free state - that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t also allow for other uses. “Shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”. Eh? I hadn’t looked at it like that before, and I’m not sure how you can… I had read it as the one sole and exclusive reason. It doesn’t say “amongst other things”. Its express inclusion limits the scope of the amendment. If it had no rider, then this would suggest there was no express purpose for the amendment, which gives it a limitless interpretation. But the rider gives it its purpose - the only _constitutional_ purpose to bear arms. You can have lesser legal rights to own firearms, of course, for whatever purpose, but you only have a constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of preserving “the security of a free state”. You say: > [@](#): > > It is just as valid to say that you are “maintaining your freedom/security” by repelling a home invader. A person’s property is his own… when that property, and his life, are threatened, he is allowed to protect it. …but the amendment says “security of…state”, not of “person” or “family” or “home”. Its not there in the Constitution. Another law might allow you to do such a thing: but that law isn’t the US Constitution. > [@](#): > > Using this same logic (and no, I’m not being sarcastic in calling it “logic”), it can be said that the “Freedom of Speech” can be limited simply to the spoken word… not writing, not TV, not the Internet, not art, not music, etc. etc. I’m with you entirely. The thing should shift with the times. Times have changed: weapons have become more sophisticated. Why limit it arbitrarily to weapons that are operated by a single person? This is carving into the amendment a limitation which shouldn’t be there. (Sticky “i” button? You deviant bastards 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/65 "2001-09-06T14:07:39Z")
\<_Hi, my name is xeno, and I… I have a sticky “i” key…_\> **mhendo** : Your objections to my interpretation of the 2nd are quite valid on a purely grammatical basis. And of course, as you pointed out, Mr. Copperud’s interpretation matches yours. However, I believe a full reading of the text of the Constitituion (particularly Article 1, Section 8) supports my interpetration of the presupposition by the framers that the formation of militias was a states’ right not to be abridged. Your responses to **Beeblebrox** ’ questions (particularly to question # 4) were terrific. I take exception to a bit of it, however (just because I’m contrary by nature). I agree with you that **tyranny** takes many forms, but I think the question of _resistance to tyranny_ is the general purpose of the BoR amendments (see [the preamble to the BoR](http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/preamble.html)), addressed by them collectively rather than by any one of them specifically. **Dave Stewart** : _One_ of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to protect the primary (at that time) means for individual states to exert their autonomy. It was popularly supposed that state militias would refuse to muster for a federal government if that government became oppressive. However, the 2nd is also unambiguous in stating that “the right of the people” is protected; their justification for protecting that right, while important, should not be taken as a _limitation_ of that right. By the way, just in case anyone wants to argue it, I fully realize my interpretation of “well regulated” was horribly simplistic and incomplete. My point was merely that the meaning of the term is not limited to “subject to controls and structural constraints”, but also refers to the standards of uniformity such an organization must have to be effective. (Some good comments [here](http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.htm#3.22) in a [militia history and law faq](http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.htm).) ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/66 "2001-09-06T18:14:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > \*\*ExTank wrote: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > The reason these distinctions are necessary pertains to the difference between “arms” and “ordnance”. > > > > Not to mention the difference between “ordnance” and “ordinance.” 😉 \*\* > > Yeah I was wondering about that: I thought it might have been American spelling, and I perpetuated it. \*\* As did I. Sigh. Mea culpa and all that, thanks guys. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/67 "2001-09-06T18:38:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > **By the way, just in case anyone wants to argue it, I fully realize my interpretation of “well regulated” was horribly simplistic and incomplete. My point was merely that the meaning of the term is not limited to “subject to controls and structural constraints”, but also refers to the standards of uniformity such an organization must have to be effective.** I was actually going to bring this up, but could not find the cite I needed in a timely manner, so I didn’t bother. “Well-regulated” could also mean “well-kept” or “well-maintenanced”, refering to the equipment. In the link I posted above, Mr. Copperud seems to disagree, but the cite I was searching for quotes a Revolutionary War historian. Oh well. Just some food for thought. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > **…but the amendment says “security of…state”, not of “person” or “family” or “home”. Its not there in the Constitution. Another law might allow you to do such a thing: but that law isn’t the US Constitution.** “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, the right of the people. From the link I posted above: > [@](#): > > **[Schulman:**_\_\*\* (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” null and void?;] > > [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/68 "2001-09-06T21:45:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I had read it as the one sole and exclusive reason. It doesn’t say “amongst other things”. I could see how you would make that interpretation… after all, in this day and age, we are accustomed to legal documents being VERY specific about the Do’s and Don’ts. However, since I value internal consistency, I view the broad interpretations often denoted to the 1st Amendment as a justification for a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, if “speech” can include “being naked in public”, why can’t “arms” refer to “modern guns” or “security” mean “owning guns for self-defense”? I also find your comments ironic (not wrong or inaccurate, just ironic), because in past Gun Debates, pro-control people have kept insisting that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting against tyranny. Just shows how different points of view can make things interesting, eh? > [@](#): > > You can have lesser legal rights to own firearms, of course, for whatever purpose, but you only have a constitutional right to bear arms for the express purpose of preserving “the security of a free state”. I can’t argue with this. All I can say is that the Bill of Rights also explicitly mentions that there are other rights not specifically referred to in the Constitution. In other words, just because they aren’t written down, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. However, I do completely agree that some “rights” are lesser in degree or extant than others. > [@](#): > > …but the amendment says “security of…state”, not of “person” or “family” or “home”. Its not there in the Constitution. Another law might allow you to do such a thing: but that law isn’t the US Constitution. This is true. The only way I can defend my comments about self-defense ownership is by using a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Using a very specific and narrow interpretation would lead us to conclude that, yes, people should not be allowed to own guns for self-defense or hunting, that people should not be allowed to own anything more advanced than a musket. However, that would also mean that the only sort of “speech” that is protected would be stuff that is actually spoken - no TV, radio, books, Internet - and that the only religions that are protected would be those that existed as of the late 1700s. Granted, if we took that last bit, we wouldn’t have Scientology… that almost would make it all worth it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/69 "2001-09-07T00:44:04Z")
**Spoofe** : > [@](#): > > I also find your comments ironic (not wrong or inaccurate, just ironic), because in past Gun Debates, pro-control people have kept insisting that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting against tyranny. Just shows how different points of view can make things interesting, eh? I don’t see how any pro-control person could successfully argue that. They might take a different tack, and argue that the amendment should be repealed on the basis of a change in society, the inherent danger in increasingly more pptent firearms or whatever. But the purpose of the amendment as it stands seems pretty clear to me, at least. Make no mistake, I’m ardently in favour of imposing very strict controls on firearms, and my government in my country has done that. But the more I look into this issue, the more I realise that there are significant cultural differences between Americans and other Westerners on this point. My personal preferences don’t invalidate yours, and the fact that I struggle to comprehend your view on guns only serves to highlight these cultural differences. The cultural difference is embodied in your Constitution, and has arisen as a result of your singular history. Fair enough. I’m just trying to take a good honest look at the amendment, and I’m calling it as I see it. > [@](#): > > I could see how you would make that interpretation… after all, in this day and age, we are accustomed to legal documents being VERY specific about the Do’s and Don’ts. However, since I value internal consistency, I view the broad interpretations often denoted to the 1st Amendment as a justification for a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Like I said, if “speech” can include “being naked in public”, why can’t “arms” refer to “modern guns” or “security” mean “owning guns for self-defense”? I was with you right up until the last point, because you’ve broadened “security of [the] state” to simply “security”. That goes beyond the intent of the drafters and the purpose of the amendment. **Demise** says: > [@](#): > > “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, the right of the people. > > From the link I posted above: > [Schulman:\ (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” null and void?;] > > [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. With respect, I think this is wrong. The amendment is drafted with an express conditional rider, giving a purpose to the amendment. The militia don’t have to exist: they can be called into existence for the specific purpose/express circumstances. But there are/is express circumstances/ a specific purpose giving rise to the need for the right. As a slight aside, I had always thought the amendment was lacking in clear grammatical structure, but someone (a gun advocate, if I recall correctly) in another thread on these boards stated that such a structure was typical of legal drafting at the time (rider plus base). ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/70 "2001-09-07T00:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\* > With respect, I think this is wrong. The amendment is drafted with an express conditional rider, giving a purpose to the amendment. The militia don’t have to exist: they can be called into existence for the specific purpose/express circumstances. But there are/is express circumstances/ a specific purpose giving rise to the need for the right. > \*\* Just for the record, the militia does in fact always exist. It is specifically defined in U.S law (10 USC 311): (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/71 "2001-09-07T15:29:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > **With respect, I think this is wrong. The amendment is drafted with an express conditional rider, giving a purpose to the amendment.** And there lies the crux of the matter. You say it’s wrong to interpret the 2nd this way, others (including language experts) say it’s right. Around and around we go, and it never stops. I’m getting dizzy. Let me use an example from the article I linked. **Dave** , how would you interpret this sentence? “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” Would you think that this would guarantee only “A well-schooled electorate” could read books? Or would it guarantee “the right of the people” to read books, _because_ this in turn would mean that “A well-schooled electorate” would exist? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/72 "2001-09-07T21:12:59Z")
Demise: > [@](#): > > “Well-regulated” could also mean “well-kept” or “well-maintenanced”, refering to the equipment. I seriously doubt that the FFs were concerned with the minutia of equipment maintenance or how “regular”-ly the militia members met and trained. It does make sense that they would have been concerned that any old armed group could be a threat to their community unless they were _answerable to_ a reponsible body such as a state–or at very least local–government, rather than just themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/73 "2001-09-07T23:31:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > **I seriously doubt that the FFs were concerned with the minutia of equipment maintenance or how “regular”-ly the militia members met and trained.** Right, because you want your militia fighting tryanny with rusty guns that fall apart when you fire them while they are running in circles because they have no clue what to do. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/74 "2001-09-08T01:41:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Demise \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > > **With respect, I think this is wrong. The amendment is drafted with an express conditional rider, giving a purpose to the amendment.** > > And there lies the crux of the matter. You say it’s wrong to interpret the 2nd this way, others (including language experts) say it’s right. Around and around we go, and it never stops. I’m getting dizzy. > > Let me use an example from the article I linked. **Dave** , how would you interpret this sentence? > > “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.” > > Would you think that this would guarantee only “A well-schooled electorate” could read books? Or would it guarantee “the right of the people” to read books, _because_ this in turn would mean that “A well-schooled electorate” would exist? \*\* Ok, I understand where you’re coming from now, but I think we’re at crossed purposes (unless I’m being particularly dim at this hour of the morning). There are 4 elements: 1. the (existence of a) militia 2. the purpose of security of a free state 3. the right of the people to bear arms 4. no infringement on that right As I understand it, you’re looking at #1. You’re saying that the existence of the militia (#1)isn’t necessary for the overall objective, the right of the people to bear arms(#3) which shall not be infringed (#4). That’s fine, if that’s what you’re saying: no problem with that. I’m not bothered by the existence or non-existence of a militia at all. I’m looking at #2, as the overall sole and exclusive reason for the amendment. In the absence of the express purpose in #2, you could bear arms for whatever reason. But the entire amendment has an express purpose, set out in #2. Thinking about it a little more, perhaps you’re going further and saying that #1 and #2 are a subsidiary (in interpretation) method of achieving #3 and #4, i.e. #3 and #4 are paramount. #2 is subsidiary to #1, which is in turn subsidiary to #3 and #4. Sorry **Demise** , I’m trying to get my head around your interpretation. If my understanding of your position is correct, you say the freedom of the state justifies the existence of a militia, not the right to bear arms. But even by this reasoning, #2 is still the \*foundation \* for the #1, the existence of the militia, which is the reason for #3, the right to bear arms. (Getting back to OP, by either interpretation, there is no restriction on the level of armament to be borne by the people. My interpretation says it should be at the level of tyranny’s army: yours, if I understand it correctly, provides no limit at all because there is no conditional rider on the amendment as a whole.) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/75 "2001-09-08T02:29:00Z")
Demise wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > > Not to mention the difference between “ordnance” and “ordinance.” 😉 > > > > Yeah I was wondering about that: I thought it might have been American spelling, and I perpetuated it. \*\* > > As did I. Sigh. Mea culpa and all that, thanks guys. 😛 Well, don’t feel **too** bad. “Ordnance” and “ordinance” are both real words, and they’re pronounced (almost) the same way. And they both come from the medieval French word _ordenance_, which means an act of arranging. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/76 "2001-09-08T21:54:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*_Thinking about it a little more, perhaps you’re going further and saying that #1 and #2 are a subsidiary (in interpretation) method of achieving #3 and #4, i.e. #3 and #4 are paramount. #2 is subsidiary to #1, which is in turn subsidiary to #3 and #4. Sorry **Demise** , I’m trying to get my head around your interpretation. If my understanding of your position is correct, you say the freedom of the state justifies the existence of a militia, not the right to bear arms. But even by this reasoning, #2 is still the foundation \* for the #1, the existence of the militia, which is the reason for #3, the right to bear arms._ Pretty close. I’m saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment because it makes the existence of the militia possible, which is necessary to the security of a free state. So, in your numbering scheme, #4 applies to #1, #2, and #3 equally. Because #3 is guaranteed, #1 can exist, which leads to #2 as a result. I’ve stated my view on what “Arms” are guaranteed by the 2nd. IMHO, it means that things such as fully-automatic rifles should be legal to own without the current restrictions and maybe grenades as well, but not weapons that are less personal in scale. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2001, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/77 "2001-09-09T02:22:13Z")
Um, **Demise** , did you just characterize _grenades_ as “personal in scale”? Could you explain your thinking there a bit, as I’m confused about your standards for “personal” weaponry? ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2001, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/78 "2001-09-09T03:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*Um, **Demise** , did you just characterize _grenades_ as “personal in scale”? Could you explain your thinking there a bit, as I’m confused about your standards for “personal” weaponry? \*\* Yes, a single person can carry and use one, they generally aren’t made to damage structures and are mostly only fatal to people in the same immediate area as the person tossing one. Therefore, a grenade is a weapon that is personal in scale. “In scale” being the important distinction. Not that I want to bother owning grenades or that I think it would be desirable for everyone to have them, but I was tossing it out as a weapon that might be covered by the 2nd as something the militia would use. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2001, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/79 "2001-09-09T03:22:05Z")
> [@](#): > > are mostly only fatal to people in the same immediate **area** as the person tossing one Bolding mine. “Area effect” usually has connotations of something more than “personal weapon”, but that’s just me. I have no qualms about giving up grenades or automatic weapons… in return, we get to keep our handguns, rifles, and shotguns. That’s the compromise, right? Right? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2001, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998/80 "2001-09-09T03:26:42Z")
**Dave:** > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but by extension of this logic I think you are only entitled to be armed with muskets. What’s the difference? I can’t see why if you are going to draw “individually wielded weapons” from the amendment, you can just as validly limit it to “muskets and gunshot”. What logic are _you_ using? Are you implying that under the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd. people are limited to the arms capable of being produced with late 18th century technology? _My_ statement: > [@](#): > > The basic distinction is that individual weapons can be carried and operated by an _individual._ is fairly consistent with 99.999999+% of the available selection of firearms at 99.999999+% of the gun stores in America. I didn’t arbitrarily draw the inference to individually wielded weapons from the amendment; the passage “…keep and **bear** arms…” implies arms that can be borne (by an individual). That would indeed have been muskets at the time of the Constitution’s writing. But no legal precedent has upheld that the internet or the television industry are exempt from 1st Amendment protection _just because they weren’t invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution!_ Just the opposite, in fact. It has even been extended to the hate speech of Neo-Nazis, reprehesible as their message is to 99.999999+% of Americans. And that wasn’t around at the time of the writing of the Constitution, either. By extension, it can can be construed to apply to the 2nd. as well. To imply that somehow firearms available to citizens be frozen at late 18th century technology is ludicrous. > [@](#): > > (and even then, **Ex-Tank** correctly points out that a rocket launcher is a hand-held firearm nowadays). Incorrect. Let’s keep the terminology straight here. I said it was man portable. A pistol is hand held. Perhaps some lighter rifles, by a strong man. A .50 caliber machinegun is man-portable; no man that I know of could carry it in his hand (note the singular inference). If he could, he wouldn’t have much need for a machinegun. Note that Rocket Propelled Grenades and Stinger Missiles are man portable, but they are operated by 2- to 4-man teams, with various personnel being assigned as ammo carriers, loaders, spotters and such. Even though there is ultimately only one man holding and firing the weapon doesn’t make it an individual weapon; it takes a team of men to effectively employ a a rocket or missile launcher. This only breaks down when we come to something like the M-203, an M-16 with a 40mm grenade launcher attached beneath the barrel. There is typically one of these per infantry squad; its operator is called the “grenadier” and is considered a specialist. > [@](#): > > **ExTank’s** comment: > > > [@](#): > > > > The reason these distinctions are necessary pertains to the difference between “arms” and “ordnance”. > > …equally disregards the purpose, of fighting an enemy which may be equipped with ordnance. Yes, well quantity has a quality all its own. Those helicopters and jet fighters have to land sometime. Even tankers must come out of their armor for fuel, food and ammo. When they do, they are just as vulnerable to a .30-06 as any other human being. Of course, in the event of a “tyranny” coup, the states (National Guard and Air National Guard) would have the ordnance necessary to support civillian militias operating in a guerilla mode. Watch _The Patriot;_ while not being a historically accurate portrayal of Revolutionary militias in general, it is an accurate depiction of the militia concept in implementation. Although, under the “level playing field” interpretation of what armaments civillians may possess, the right to grenade launchers, RPGs, SAMs and such would be unrestricted. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how any pro-control person could successfully argue that. They might take a different tack, and argue that the amendment should be repealed on the basis of a change in society, the inherent danger in increasingly more potent firearms or whatever. And that, my friend, is quite possibly the only logical basis for debate; if the pro-control crowd had acknowledged historical evidence and legal and cultural precedent, and relied soley upon that argument alone, then they may have achieved their goals in the lates 60s/early 70s. But their sophistry has instead alienated tens of millions of their fellow Americans, touched off a cultural war (urban/cosmoploitan .vs. rural/traditional) and engendered a furiously heated partisan debate that cannot, in its current incarnation, be “won” by either side. I was going to address your “4 elements of the 2nd. Ad.” but **Demise** already dropped that one through the hoop without touching the rim from half-court for three. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limitations-on-personal-armament/78998.md?page=5)