Right to Bear Arms [HELP]:

[Patriot123]

All right. So I'm debating this person who's saying that...

"the right to bear arms" simply means "the right to carry arms, which means if you can't carry it you can't have it."

So, in short, by his interpretation of the Constitution, you can't, say, bear a cannon, or a tank, or anything of the sort. Is he right or wrong? If he's wrong, why? Rebuttals?

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

"the right to keep and bear arms" is the whole quote. That should blow him outta the water, with the childish argument he put forward.

[Patriot123]

Yes, but still, however, his argument is that if you cannot carry it, you cannot have it, due to the term, "bear" being used, which means to carry, and due to the and that's in there, and not an "or" for example. So he's arguing that it's unconstitutional to own, say, a tank, or a nuclear weapon, or a cannon, or a jet, unless of course you can carry it.

[pcosmar]

All right. So I'm debating this person who's saying that...

"the right to bear arms" simply means "the right to carry arms, which means if you can't carry it you can't have it."

So, in short, by his interpretation of the Constitution, you can't, say, bear a cannon, or a tank, or anything of the sort. Is he right or wrong? If he's wrong, why? Rebuttals?
This should probably be in the "bearing arms" sub forum, but,
It is a right to KEEP and BEAR arms.
Much of the artillery and warships in the founders day were privately owned.

I believe if you want to carry a tank you are welcomed to. I would suggest parking it in the driveway.

There should be NO laws concerning any weapon beyond what you do with it.
There are already laws against assault and murder.

[RideTheDirt]

"the right to keep and bear arms" is the whole quote. That should blow him outta the water, with the childish argument he put forward.
+1776

[Patriot123]

Yes, however again, his argument is that due to the term "bear" being used, which means to carry, if you cannot carry, say, a tank or a jet, you cannot own it. And due to the fact that there's an "and" in between keep and bear, which is not or for example, which means that the two are not interchangeable.

[Danke]

Yes, but still, however, his argument is that if you cannot carry it, you cannot have it, due to the term, "bear" being used, which means to carry, and due to the and that's in there, and not an "or" for example. So he's arguing that it's unconstitutional to own, say, a tank, or a nuclear weapon, or a cannon, or a jet, unless of course you can carry it.

So your friend thinks "suitcase" nukes are ok? :D

[AutoDas]

He'd have a problem if I had a replica cannon but not if I had a rocket launcher? Assault rifles should be legal as long as I don't mount it on a private super jet.

[Patriot123]

So your friend thinks "suitcase" nukes are ok? :D

Hmmm... Well, apparently by his logic, I assume.

Either way, I need an argument for the point he brought up. Something. Anyone :p

[AutoDas]

Constitutionally I think he's right. That's what the Framers had in mind.

[Patriot123]

Constitutionally I think he's right. That's what the Framers had in mind.

That's the one thing I was hoping wasn't true...

Hence why I believe our constitution can be far better than what it is currently.

[pinkmandy]

It's not keep only the arms you can bear. You can keep arms and bear arms. His argument is flawed.

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ~ Thomas Jefferson (pg 45 from the Manifesto ;) )

Ask him what he thinks the founders, who privately owned cannons among other weapons and used them to fight against tyranny, intended.

[AutoDas]

I once met somebody who thought the second amendment was there to protect our right bear our coat of arms...

[Patriot123]

It's not keep only the arms you can bear. You can keep arms and bear arms. His argument is flawed.

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform the the probable one in which it was passed." ~ Thomas Jefferson (pg 45 from the Manifesto ;) )

Ask him what he thinks the founders, who privately owned cannons among other weapons and used them to fight against tyranny, intended.
Yes, but it's not "or." It's "and," which is his basic argument.

But then my entire argument against him would be utterly flawed... I'm saying that, say, the Secretary of Defense is unconstitutional as it isn't granted to the government to have such a position. As are all of these government programs. My argument is that you have to take the Constitution word for word, literally.

[Patriot123]

Also... Does anyone know where Jefferson, or any of the founders, said that people should be able to bear whatever arms they like?

[pinkmandy]

Was the word "gun" not used back then- did they have to say "arms" instead? Arms implies just that, different types of arms. It doesn't say guns.

[AmericaFyeah92]

That's the one thing I was hoping wasn't true...

Hence why I believe our constitution can be far better than what it is currently.

u want to be able to carry nukes or tanks?

i would fight to defend the right to bear arms (including assault weapons, yes), but no sensible country would allow private citizens to carry WMDs or war machines. Even Ron Paul has said so.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Also... Does anyone know where Jefferson, or any of the founders, said that people should be able to bear whatever arms they like?

The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

[pinkmandy]

http://www.io.com/~velte/quotes.htm

Arms is a general term for weapons. They specifically did not say guns.

[WarDog]

The right to keep and bear arms.

the "right to"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_arms


2nd "to keep" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep

[newyearsrevolution08]

I would first make sure this person is not simply debating you just to debate you. If the person is simply against guns then you will NEVER defeat his mindset. I would suggest getting him information as to WHY we should own weapons whether for protection or sport.

Sometimes the best defense to arguments like this one is to simply educate the person as to why we all want to KEEP our rights instead of trying to gripe about what exactly our rights should be.

First get them onboard with "its a right" THEN figure out what the persons issue is with the right to carry. Most the time when I deal with this question, they really only have that one statement because they saw it on the talking box in their living room. See if there is any real substance behind his issue or if he is simply saying something he heard.

Also make sure and let him know about our ability to put 10 people who have the right to bear arms together and they will happily pick up that cannon together (-;

That makes almost as much sense as his point.


All right. So I'm debating this person who's saying that...

"the right to bear arms" simply means "the right to carry arms, which means if you can't carry it you can't have it."

So, in short, by his interpretation of the Constitution, you can't, say, bear a cannon, or a tank, or anything of the sort. Is he right or wrong? If he's wrong, why? Rebuttals?

[Ozwest]

I would first make sure this person is not simply debating you just to debate you. If the person is simply against guns then you will NEVER defeat his mindset. I would suggest getting him information as to WHY we should own weapons whether for protection or sport.

Sometimes the best defense to arguments like this one is to simply educate the person as to why we all want to KEEP our rights instead of trying to gripe about what exactly our rights should be.

First get them onboard with "its a right" THEN figure out what the persons issue is with the right to carry. Most the time when I deal with this question, they really only have that one statement because they saw it on the talking box in their living room. See if there is any real substance behind his issue or if he is simply saying something he heard.

Also make sure and let him know about our ability to put 10 people who have the right to bear arms together and they will happily pick up that cannon together (-;

That makes almost as much sense as his point.

I have converted many anti-gun people by inviting them down to the gun club, shoving a high caliber weapon into their hands, cooking up a feed, and introducing them to other shooters.

Gotta break down the stereotypes.

[pdavis]

u want to be able to carry nukes or tanks?

i would fight to defend the right to bear arms (including assault weapons, yes), but no sensible country would allow private citizens to carry WMDs or war machines. Even Ron Paul has said so.

Please show me a quote or video of Ron Paul saying this.

As for the OP,
Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution:


Congress shall have power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letters of marque and reprisal were issued to permit privateers (private warships) and mercenaries (private armies) to retaliate against a nation or enemy for some wrong (terrorism, piracy, act of war) and to regain redress for an action taken against that nation (example: seizing a ship and its cargo in retaliation for an enemy seized ship and cargo).

Many of these letters were issued by Congress during the American Revolution and during the War of 1812 due to a lack of a Naval force.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I have converted many anti-gun people by inviting them down to the gun club, shoving a high caliber weapon into their hands, cooking up a feed, and introducing them to other shooters.

Gotta break down the stereotypes.

exactly, stop trying to win arguments but rather SHOW them why we want to keep the rights. Nothing would change a person like a high caliber weapon, that is what got me hooked many years ago as well. Not that I ever was antigun BUT going out and doing it CAN change a persons mind.

A gun range is also a great place because they will see how strict a range can be and allow a person to feel safe. Many stereotypes will get smashed on day one indeed.

[Ozwest]

exactly, stop trying to win arguments but rather SHOW them why we want to keep the rights. Nothing would change a person like a high caliber weapon, that is what got me hooked many years ago as well. Not that I ever was antigun BUT going out and doing it CAN change a persons mind.

A gun range is also a great place because they will see how strict a range can be and allow a person to feel safe. Many stereotypes will get smashed on day one indeed.
Not to mention...

The camping and the fishing.:)

[sratiug]

Your friend is an idiot. The right to keep and bear arms. You can keep arms, and you can bear arms. The right to keep or bear arms, would mean you couldn't carry any weapons with you if you left any at home.

[AisA1787]

All right. So I'm debating this person who's saying that...

"the right to bear arms" simply means "the right to carry arms, which means if you can't carry it you can't have it."

So, in short, by his interpretation of the Constitution, you can't, say, bear a cannon, or a tank, or anything of the sort. Is he right or wrong? If he's wrong, why? Rebuttals?

I suppose based on that logic... a mute person doesn't have the right to free speech because he can't talk. This would be the literal interpretation of the First Amendment based on that person's logic. Luckily, the courts don't take "freedom of speech" that literally. They've interpreted it broadly (as they should) to mean freedom of any kind of expression, such as wearing a t-shirt with a slogan, putting up a sign on your property, etc.

If you interpret the phrase "keep and bear arms" in the same way that "freedom of speech" has been interpreted (which you should), then you can say that driving a tank or flying a fighter jet is "bearing arms" in the same sense that wearing a political t-shirt or posting a sign in your yard is exercising your right to "free speech." You're not carrying the tank when you drive it, just like you're not necessarily speaking when you wear a t-shirt or post a sign, but you are bearing arms and exercising your freedom of speech when you do these things. To make this applicable to the 18th century, people didn't literally carry cannons around, but they did "keep and bear" them (own and use them).

To sum it up... If a mute person can't speak, should his right to freedom of speech be taken away? If a person can't literally carry a tank or a fighter jet, should his right to own and drive or fly ("keep and bear") a tank or a fighter jet be taken away? There are many different types of "free speech" just as there are many different ways to "keep and bear arms."

Furthermore, an inability to exercise a given right does not mean that right should be taken away. If someone wants to buy a fighter jet and try to literally pick it up off the ground every day first thing in the morning, then they have the Constitutional right to try to do this. Even if they can't. Just like we shouldn't take away a mute person's freedom of speech, because one day that person might be able to speak. Of course now I'm just being silly, like that idiot you're debating.

[SeanEdwards]

nevermind

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

Yes, but still, however, his argument is that if you cannot carry it, you cannot have it, due to the term, "bear" being used, which means to carry, and due to the and that's in there, and not an "or" for example. So he's arguing that it's unconstitutional to own, say, a tank, or a nuclear weapon, or a cannon, or a jet, unless of course you can carry it.

to me the way the 2nd amendment is written, it's affirming the right to keep AND bear arms. it is not making anything illegal nor is it talking about any legality at all.. it's quite simply recognizing the fact that in a free socioty, the government should not be in charge of the weapons, the people should... tell him to read a little more like, "...being NECESSARY (not legal or illegal) to the security of a FREE state..."

[Timothy]

Well, the "and" is ambiguous. It might mean: "The right to keep arms and (additionally) the right to bear arms." or it might mean: "The right to keep and bear (at the same time) arms."

[pcosmar]

Well, the "and" is ambiguous. It might mean: "The right to keep arms and (additionally) the right to bear arms." or it might mean: "The right to keep and bear (at the same time) arms."

All of the above.
What it means is that the Government is forbidden from any laws affecting arms.
What part of "right" and "Shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

[Dr.3D]

I know a guy who has a tank. Actually, he has a few of them. He doesn't carry it but he owns it and drives it around on his property. There is no law saying you can't own a tank. I doubt he has any shells for the gun though.

Here is a place where you may buy some military vehicles.
http://p8.hostingprod.com/@idahomotorpool.com/index.html

[SeanEdwards]

My opinion is that the second amendment should be understood to permit civilians to keep and bear arms equivalent to the standard infantry soldier. I think the amendment was intended to protect the concept of militia, whereby civilians could take up arms and form some kind of effective defense against organized military forces. As such, the arms permitted should allow civilians to have a reasonable parity with troops of an organized military.

It's kind of a philosophical compromise. In a pure anarchy/individual liberty scenario it might be appropriate for every single person to have their own nuclear/biological/chemical arsenal, but this seems a bit extreme and implausible. Setting the standard of civilian arms as equivalent to what our military infantry soldier is issued at least creates a benchmark that is clearly defined, and it allows for adaptation as standards of weaponry evolve.

[Mini-Me]

My opinion is that the second amendment should be understood to permit civilians to keep and bear arms equivalent to the standard infantry soldier. I think the amendment was intended to protect the concept of militia, whereby civilians could take up arms and form some kind of effective defense against organized military forces. As such, the arms permitted should allow civilians to have a reasonable parity with troops of an organized military.

It's kind of a philosophical compromise. In a pure anarchy/individual liberty scenario it might be appropriate for every single person to have their own nuclear/biological/chemical arsenal, but this seems a bit extreme and implausible. Setting the standard of civilian arms as equivalent to what our military infantry soldier is issued at least creates a benchmark that is clearly defined, and it allows for adaptation as standards of weaponry evolve.

I agree with you Sean, especially on the bolded part (emphasis which I added). The Second Amendment clearly had the intention of ensuring a well-armed populace could resist any standing army. As far as I can tell, the words and intentions of the Second Amendment essentially refer exactly to such weapons that you can carry in your own two hands (although I guess you could construct my words against me to allow for suitcase nukes ;)), or maybe those that several men could hold together. Although pcosmar is correct that many tanks and warships used to be privately owned (and I see no problem with it), I don't exactly think that's what the Framers had in mind by the words or intentions of the Second Amendment. I'm not saying that tanks are entirely unreasonable possessions to have, but just that the wording of the Second Amendment strikes me as "guns and bazookas" rather than "tanks and Death Stars." Then again, if you have a right to own a vehicle, and you have a right to own armored plating, and you have a right to own a cannon, I don't see why you wouldn't have an implicit right to own them all together. ;) It would be pretty silly to see someone drive down the street in one, but...

However...in terms of the nuclear/biological/chemical question, it's just plain extremely dangerous for individuals to own weapons of mass destruction (although I hate the term, it's applicable), since a single suicidal nutcase can wipe out all of civilization for miles. Even in an anarchy situation, you have to watch out for the Columbine types who just want to take as many people with them as possible when they die. You can hardly arrest someone like that after the fact and throw him in jail. Even the most despotic of regimes have safeguards where several people are required to activate weapons like this. That's a far cry from holding small arms that any infantry soldier can carry or operate...the mere possession of such blunt, widescale, and over-the-top weapons as nukes seems to imply threat of murderous use, considering the extreme lengths a private individual would have to go to acquire one. You can neutralize a single threat with a rock, pistol, assault rifle, bazooka, tank, or perhaps a warship...but there's nothing a nuke can be made to do except for destroy an entire city. In other words, this particular exception is the one and only time when someone can validly say that the Framers couldn't anticipate the realities of modern times/technology. It's the exception to the rule (and the rule is that they anticipated a whole lot more than modern asshats give them credit for).

[rpfan2008]

All right. So I'm debating this person who's saying that...

"the right to bear arms" simply means "the right to carry arms, which means if you can't carry it you can't have it."

So, in short, by his interpretation of the Constitution, you can't, say, bear a cannon, or a tank, or anything of the sort. Is he right or wrong? If he's wrong, why? Rebuttals?

Right to keep (say at your home) and bear (them as you like) arms.

Significance of the and here , is that 'not only you can keep them in your home but also carry them' to use elsewhere.

Keep Arms+ Carry Arms= Keep and bear arms.

So I think its legal to keep and bear (mount) every weapon.


which means if you can't carry it you can't have it

which type of weapons fall in his category? :confused: