Agreed, no tanks or jet fighters, unless you’re a collector and you fill out some extra paperwork.
I don’t think you’ve researched the common uses of language in the 1700s, but the word “state” in this context means “country”, in other words, for the fledgling United States to be secure, it’s citizens of fighting age are not ever going to be disarmed by the Government. That’s what the wording of the 2nd Amendment means.
The two of you realize that this thread is about weapons that aren’t firearms, don’t you?
In the SCA, the right to open carry swords and long knives is a topic of frequent discussion. Nobody ever mentions the 2nd Amendment, and the general idea is that they’re costume-pieces or collector’s memorabilia, rather than legitimate weapons, intended to be used as such. However, there is still a strong recommendation that, if circumstances require interaction with the local constabulary, take a few seconds (more, for some people) and lose the hardware.
With a screen name like Czarcasm, isn’t it obvious? It can be expanded to any kind of weapon the judges want it to be expanded to. And if we get to where there’s a big politicized sword culture in the US, you can be sure that the Supremes will rule on it – in a divided decision where most justices will rule consistent with their political predilections. Today they’d, likely as not, decline to hear a case regarding such an obscure issue.
I can’t find a US Supreme Court bladed weapon case, but this is from an 1872 Texas court upholding what we might call sword control:
[The “arms” referred to in the second amendment to the United States constitution are the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and they do not comprise dirks, bowie knives, etc. . . .
The deadly weapons spoken of in the statute are pistols, dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, spears, brass-knuckles and bowie knives. Can it be understood that these were contemplated by the framers of our bill of rights? Most of them are the wicked devices of modern craft.](Wm. English v. The State. The State v. G. W. Carter. The State v. Wm. Daniel.)
I don’t know if these judges were native Texans or carpetbaggers, but they’re OK in my book.
Tanks are not firearms. Aircraft are not firearms.
The Militia (“we the people” of fighting age) who are protected from being disarmed by the Government BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT I believe are entitled to be armed by any weapon reasonable for guerillas, and hand to hand combat, which I think I summarized earlier by listing some common weapons of the Revolutionary period.
Since the OP is about the 2nd Amendment and non-firearms, I’m not getting the gist of your comment, or it’s relationship to the quote you picked.
How 'bout you, Damuri, you getting this?
Even then you can’t get your hands on live rounds. I looked into this a while back and you can buy a tank, you just can’t buy the rounds for the gun and finding the right reloading dies for that is a bitch.
If you do a word search for “state” in the constitution, the word “state” standing alone always refers to a single state or each of the states, except in cases where they refer to foreign states (there are other uses of the word 'state" like “state of the union” and “state” as in statement). The words United States is used in every isntance where they mean the nation.
So I’m not sure you’re correct. I think taht the several states were concerned about autonomy during this process. in fact they were so concerned that their previous attempt at a union didn not grant enough authority to the federal government to make a viable nation (see articles of confederacy). I think there was considerable concern about a tyranny from the center and that the second amendment was at least in part geared towards protecting against that.
Tanks and jet fighters?
I think he is afraid we are derailing this thread into a typical gun rights thread when they are trying to talk about things other than firearms. I think that question was asked and answered by about the 5th response.
nvm
I know, I just like belaboring the bleeding obvious. About tanks, no one said you have to be able to buy easily available ammo. As long as some wealthy collector is legally permitted to find some old ammo somewhere and fill out paperwork, which may be related to explosives, or to environmental protection, for all I know, then I’m cool with tanks and plane for show, if you can afford them.
Tanks and planes have little to do with the 2nd Amendment, since they aren’t really “arms”.
I disagree.
The 2nd amendment could have referred to the right to keep and bear small arms. But it didn’t, so it also refers to cannon. And cannon on wheels. A tank is basically a cannon on wheels, plus the innovation of an engine. And on top of that, armour, hardly by itself a new invention.
Either the 2nd amendment refers to 18th century arms only, which I’m sure you reject, or it also covers arms that would be invented in the future. These arms include not only semi-automatic and automatic guns, but also tanks, warplanes, and nuclear arms.
No one really supports the 2nd amendment. Certainly not the hypocritical supremes who allow keeping and bearing of small arms, swords and otherwise, almost everywhere in Washington DC except federal facilities such as their own courthouse.
According to Presser v. Illinois (1886), mentioned in #3, the 2nd amendment (unlike the 1st) is a restriction on the federal government, with the states allowed to restrict guns (and apparently, although only mentioned in passing, cavalry swords) as they wish. That’s a lot closer to what the constitution says than the legal mess we have today.
What about hand grenades? Are they “arms”? I mean, isn’t the common soldier trained to carry and use grenades? Or are we limited to firearms?
There are two ways to approach this question. First, if it’s a rhetorical question from an anti-gun type, all I can say is that there are obvious differences between arms and armaments and explosives. There are different rules for each, and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect your right to have explosives … these aren’t arms, as far as I can determine. Still, private companies, and I believe private citizens under some conditions, can qualify to buy and use explosives (Miners, Oil Men, Mythbusters).
For all other questioners, I’d say, "Duh, bombs aren’t “arms”.
How did you determine it?
Here is the eighteenth century dictionary definition:
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=12700
Some explosives certainly are “weapons of offense,” although others are designed for tasks such as mining.
It’s been my experience reading on the subject (this is before the Internet and Google) that, in a military context, there is a difference between “arms” and “ordinance”, which is how it was spelled in the 1700s. It’s now “ordnance”.
That’s my understanding, and really, the semantics of the topic is one law or legal decision away from officially being written in stone, so to speak. That’s why I don’t nitpick definitions, because courts and Congress get to define all these things in the end, and will do so in spite of the references one may dig up in a library or on line.
Hey! That’s my point. It means whatever today’s Supremes say it means.
The good news is that, if our Democratic process, slow and meandering as it seems to work, actually is Democratic, the will of The People, which may be prone to wild and unpredictable fluctuations, will, in the very end, prevail. When the process works well, slavery remains forbidden and Prohibition is overturned. Read into that short bit of historical snapshots what you will, insofar as speculation is concerned.
The final majority opinions of the voters, as a group, which may dance on both sides of the fence initially, will trump the mindsets of the Judges in the final tally. The future is wide open.
The job of a judge is to be right and through their written opinions convince others of their rightness. They have neither the power of the sword nor the purse, they only have the power of the pen.
You sort of missed my point that slavery thrived for years and Prohibition limped along for too long, while “right” Judges were sitting on their cozy benches. They are political puppets, just like Politicians, technocrats, and bureaucrats, and will succumb to greed and influence just like any other human might.
In both those cases, the judge is restricted by the constitution. The constitution wasn’t infallible when it was created and might need to change with history. The founding fathers put in an amendment process because the founding fathers recognized that fact.
Judges have to be right (perhaps I should have added: about the law). Slavery was protected by law and the constitution for a long time, our founding fathers were slavers. Prohibition was the law of the land, people saw the harm that alcohol produced and thought, gee if we just ban it, all our problems will be solved, they were wrong and we changed it back but judges were absolutely correct to follow their oath of office and follow the constitution.
One of the greatest pillars of our democracy is that the most undemocratic branch of our government (the judiciary) is the arbiter of the law.
Judges interpret the law. They write opinions. They define “right”. It’s like the Pope … he can’t be wrong on the subject of Catholicism. Is he ever wrong? Sure, probably, but since he defines “right” for all Catholics, then he can say “No condoms allowed,” and be technically right. Except it’s not really right.
As long as Judges “interpret” law, I’m not getting what “pillars” they really are, just political appointees who will toe the line for the powers that handed them the cake gig.