2nd amendment question

[victorblaine]

When the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, the conventional weapons of the time included cannons. What "arms" did they intend for us to bear? I believe in owning guns, but is the 2nd amendment broad enough that we can own Howitzers or tanks?

I guess another question is "should we be able to own more than just guns?"

[Fox McCloud]

I think so, though, within reason; not very many people can afford to have suitcase nukes, tanks, missiles, etc.

There's a few grey areas that I think is hard to define (explosives) as there are a few very responsible people out there, but there's also your stereotypical redkneck who doesn't know what the potential is, or the fact he could wipe out his neighbors.

I think the 2nd amendment, however, mainly applies to firearms...therefore, handguns, rifles, sporting, and assault weapons are all fair game for citizens to carry around.

the others? I think it'd be a State issue.

[bbachtung]

If you think that the 1st Amendment applies to things other than guys standing on soapboxes and pamphlets printed using rudimentary 18th Century printing presses (i.e., loudspeakers, the internet, television, radio, movies), then the 2nd Amendment applies to anything within the term "arms."

[Dave Pedersen]

Yeah it is better to err on the side of freedom. I can see problems with people owning tanks and military helicopters but I think shoulder fired missiles for instance should be considered "arms" in the constitutional sense.

We are a free people. There will always be those few who run rampant in some crazed state from time to time. In a truly free society those numbers would be far fewer than we see at present in this drugged up culture. I speak of dangerous corporate pharmaceuticals which make people's conditions far worse than they otherwise would be. Prosperity brings out new challenges but I would feel much safer in total anarchy than I do under this encroaching tyranny. If we do not embrace constitutionally defined government we will by necessity be thrust into total anarchy.

Let's err on the side of individual freedom and work from there to optimize a peaceful and productive society. We will face new challenges and things will NEVER be perfect but we must understand the peril of government unchained is the greatest threat to humankind.

[Oddball]

When the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, the conventional weapons of the time included cannons. What "arms" did they intend for us to bear? I believe in owning guns, but is the 2nd amendment broad enough that we can own Howitzers or tanks?

I guess another question is "should we be able to own more than just guns?"

1) The framers clearly wanted there to be a "balance of power" between official gubmint agencies and the general population. Should individuals own large artillery pieces and tanks, it'd be rather easy to round up the individual who committed violent antisocial acts with them, so why shouldn't individuals own and keep such armaments, especially given the rather high costs of maintaining and operating such weapons systens??

2) I say yes.

[Dequeant]

I think if every decently sized community could pitch in to buy a "Town M1 Abrahms" it should be allowed.

Would be a nice source of community pride.....not to mention a deterrant to federal aggression if so many small towns were armed with such serious weaponry.

The "Armed Forces" use more than rifles.......so that answers that question for me. The founders specifically stated that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee that the "standing army" could not compete with a militia comprised of the majority of the U.S. citizens. However.....that's no longer the case. Not only could our active military compete, but it wouldn't even be close. At best, we could harass with guerilla tactics, but ultimately the people NOT in the "standing army" or civilian militia would be drafted into the standing army. We really should have a CIVILIAN militia with at least SIMILAR capabilities as the standing army. The 2nd amendment has been so eroded that all we can have now is semi-autos.....with very few accessories that help our combat capabilities....such as night vision scopes and silencers. Those are all registered, over taxed PRIVELEDGES.

[pcosmar]

Under the Constitution any and all arms are to be owned by the people.
Standing armies were not to be allowed. The people should own them and keep them for defense.
With the people sufficiently armed there would be No need for an Army to defend the United States.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Here's a whole thread on which weapons are covered by the 2A.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=51579

[Malum Prohibitum]

the theory Ive heard is that what was intended by reference to militia is that the citizenry would be expected to have access to the same kind of weapony as an infantry squad.

So automatic weapons... check.
mortars... check
squad automatic weapon... check.
claymores... check....

howitzers, probably not.
bombs, probably not
nukes, definitely not.

if the goal is to ensure the citizenry can resist tyranny of the army, the 200 to one odds of population v uniforms should make up the difference.

[evadmurd]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the government. Therefore, I think it would naturally follow that the people must have the right to "bear arms" that are adequate to do just that. In those days, we were probably talking muskets and gun powder, etc (I'm no weapons expert). Today, it is obviously more complex than that. But since the constitution is a "living document", to keep it effectual, the types of arms it speaks of must escalate to match that of the government.

[forsmant]

When the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, the conventional weapons of the time included cannons. What "arms" did they intend for us to bear? I believe in owning guns, but is the 2nd amendment broad enough that we can own Howitzers or tanks?

I guess another question is "should we be able to own more than just guns?"

Bear Arms of course!

[pcosmar]

This covers about everything.


"The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each man against his own bosom.
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."

Quote by:Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Source:Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

[RedLightning]

Anything used as a weapon, swords, rifles, handguns, tanks, lightsabers...

[SWATH]

anything the government can have the people can have.

[rpfreedom08]

anything the government can have the people can have.

I agree, I don't even want to know what one of those sound wave guns can do or any of the other weapons they have that we don't. They wet our appetite for weapons but with everything the military has now I really think the only thing that could match the technology of the military industrial complex would be sheer numbers. God forbid if anything happens where we need to take up arms I hope we even have those numbers.

[Pliny]

I think there's a pretty good argument for private citizens bearing most any weapon they desire. During the early years of the Republic private citizens with ships were empowered by Congress to engage in warfare on the seas against contemporary navies. They did quite well, not only against shipping, but against warships. If citizens were meant to possess the power to own ships that could go up against the warships of major naval powers then it only stands to reason that we should be able to possess weapons comparable to our contemporary military powers.

[FlyingChainSaw]

If you're not armed - you're not dressed. The 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed and form militia in order to protect our freedoms. We spend all kinds of money on high school football but we don't teach our young people the imperatives of marksmanship or essential bayonet skills. Pathetic. Don't complain about the police state if you won't take responsibility for protecting yourself and providing a ready, potent deterrent to police state oppressions.

[noxagol]

People owned Gatling guns after the Civil War. People owned mortars and cannons also.

[conner_condor]

I thought it ment guns,But after lots of thought,and putting me back in their time,I have to agree that everything our govt. owns we should be able to. It is for us to protect against tyranny. That is what the whole 2nd is about.

[pickdog]

one can read the original militia act that essentially codified the 2nd amendment...

[freedomforall]

Check out this website. It shows a different take on the second amendment. Ron Paulites should be interested in the true constitutional intent of our founding fathers.

http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

[pickdog]

"Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

[Gunpartsguy]

I don't believe the framers of the constitution/BOR made any distinctions between any weapons. They said "arms" as in "all". Not rifles, muskets, pistols or whatever. They knew that only a well armed populace/Militia could keep a government at bay. Why do you think that they have been trying to slowly take away this right for the last 70-80 years? 100 years ago you could legally own a breech loading cannon that could shoot chain shot and do incredible damage to a lot of flesh. I know of no incident where a private citizen used a cannon to commit a crime or atrocity. But I bet we all can think of atrocities committed by governments with these weapons! More people have been killed by their own governments than any other source in history.

[knappz]

If you're not armed - you're not dressed. The 2nd Amendment requires us to be armed and form militia in order to protect our freedoms. We spend all kinds of money on high school football but we don't teach our young people the imperatives of marksmanship or essential bayonet skills. Pathetic. Don't complain about the police state if you won't take responsibility for protecting yourself and providing a ready, potent deterrent to police state oppressions.

Exactly!