Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree shields were known, but not used in Euro field combat. A shield is a arm.... A man can carry it and hold it in his hands....Swords, pikes halberds, war axes, tomahawks, boarding axes, swords, dirks, and etc are also arms....hand held weapons one man can hold and use.......
Not cannon, rockets, bombs........
But by the mid 1700's arms mostly meant fire arms, and with bayonnets. Swords were for officers and the sword needed another type of training if a man wanted to fight with it and live.
Where are you getting it from that arms have to be handheld?
No the 2nd does not give us. 'We the people' access to that sort of madness.. None of that comes under the term or meaning 0f the word Arms, which was understood to be fire arms like TP is today understood to be toliet paper!
I have first hand accounts based on this time of history, and no one including women even had underwear, but the did have wood and boar hair tooth brushes..
I guess we'll have to simply disagree on the interpretative language regarding The Second Amendment, but I am intrigued by the idea of women without underwear.
Where are you getting it from that arms have to be handheld?
I am getting it from reading articals based on 18th century warfare.... I have a small library of guns on the F&I and Rev Wars and am into historical re-enactment. Which book I have no idea off hand...
Arms was meant to be fire arms..... or Fire arms were hand held weapons in the common language of the times.. Like we say Ar and Ak and understand what one another means, when in fact the Ak is really a SAR-1 or a m70 yab, or a sniper rifle is a bolt action of undetermined make in no less than .308 cal and scoped.
Arms is a hand held weapon.....
The founding fathers envisioned citizens taking to arms with the equivalent weapons of the day. Government militias and regular armies didn't have weapons that were much superior than what citizens did. In fact, many citizens bore weapons that were far more accurate than the weapons the british wielded. In the civil war, private citizens could buy superior weapons to what soldiers used, it was just a matte rof mass production, cost and availability. So when some grade school dullard makes the argument " The founding fathers never envisioned assualt rifles they only thought of muzzle loaders" just tell them that they wanted the citizen to be able to have personal hardware that was the equal of the day. If assault rifles were around back then, they'd have wanted citizens to have them!
As you know, the 2nd amendment doesn't call out any exceptions to its ban on government interference with people's right to keep and bear arms. Not felons, not for multi-barrel multi-shot weapons, not cannons, not big gunpowder bombs, not nuthin. It simply says that for such-and-such reasons, the right cannot be taken away or restricted. PERIOD. You may not like what it says, and may disagree with it, but that's what it says.
In other parts of the Constitution, you can find phrases such as "except by due process of law", or "against unreasonable searches and seizures", etc. But for some reason, this was not done in the 2nd amendment.
Could it be that the Framers thought that the risk of government having ANY power to decide what weapons we could and couldn't own, was GREATER even than the risks of criminals getting hold of those weapons while all law-abiding people could have them too?
Could that be why no exceptions were made in the law?
It's because the only non-melee weapons that existed in those days were basic small firearms and cannons. Parity between military and civilians was easy to maintain. Heck, the civilians basically were the military since the country was so nascent.
Since that time, technology has progressed far beyond whatever those guys could have imagined back then. Rapid-fire small arms aside, today we have tanks, armed jets, cruise missiles, drones, highly-advanced surveillance systems, extremely powerful and mobile explosives, nerve gas, biological warfare agents, and all kinds of nuclear explosive devices.
A 200+ year-old document that could not conceive of the concept of an electrical infrastructure much less all of these weaponized technological advances that concentrate extreme destructive power in the hands of one cannot hope to still establish a relative parity between the military and the common civilian.
You can have the guns, but the rest is never legally coming into your hands.
I am getting it from reading articals based on 18th century warfare.... I have a small library of guns on the F&I and Rev Wars and am into historical re-enactment. Which book I have no idea off hand...
Arms was meant to be fire arms..... or Fire arms were hand held weapons in the common language of the times.. Like we say Ar and Ak and understand what one another means, when in fact the Ak is really a SAR-1 or a m70 yab, or a sniper rifle is a bolt action of undetermined make in no less than .308 cal and scoped.
Arms is a hand held weapon.....
Go back a page to 11....
See in that pic is a cannon and 2 arms.....
I'm just hearing a bunch of assumptions and interpretations.
I understand arms to mean any weaponry, and I take bear to mean to possess.
The phrase "bear arms" has also been used idomatically to mean a member of a military or to serve as a soldier. It'd be interesting to interpret the 2nd Amendment using that understanding, especially coupled with the part about the militia (in lieu of a professional standing army).
I'm just hearing a bunch of assumptions and interpretations.
I understand arms to mean any weaponry, and I take bear to mean to possess.
The phrase "bear arms" has also been used idomatically to mean a member of a military or to serve as a soldier. It'd be interesting to interpret the 2nd Amendment using that understanding, especially coupled with the part about the militia (in lieu of a professional standing army).
So what weapons do you not want in the hands of any and every private individual? Are there ANY that are off limits?
Bear means brandish or display in this case. And Arms means fire arms... By theb time i coukld dig up the raw data you wantb you will be wasting time in some other threads... and this one will be long forgotten...
I used to think a window was a part of a house maybe a side window on a car. I thought a path was a trail in the woods... I used to use a slang term 'Rock lock' for my flintlock guns, but that term today means some form of pot people smoke.
I wish young people would make up new words for terms they want instead of taking old word i knew from common places.
Once more in common terms of the 18th which I probably know better than anyone else here Arms means fire arms. By 18th century law which is still on the books you are militia... that is if you are 17 to 45....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
