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 have a different interpretation. Arms means, and meant, weapons. If you look at the etymology of the word "arms" it referred to the weapons warriors used or even more broadly to the instruments of warfare. Things like armor and shields can even be considered arms.
Correct.
Not that it matters.
The first 13 words of the 2nd amendment are merely an explanation for WHY the right cannot be taken away or restricted, not a condition on it.
If the 2nd amendment said, "The sky being blue, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", then when clouds came and turned the sky grey, you would NOT lose your right to keep and bear arms. Your right would not depend at all on the color of the sky.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers write "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd amendment?
Because the Constitution as a whole is based on the ability to be changed and amended.
At the moment I'm waiting for something to deal with the 1st line in the 1st section of the 14th.
I am saying the founders would have related to your mad devices as bombs..... The has clay pots with a mix of sulfer and farm base niter tyhat did not explode, and was used to drive someone out of an area much like we use pepper spray today.
They had heard of using the dead as bacterial warfare too.... Don't be silly.
I don't possess any "mad devices", nor would I take it upon myself to make any revisionist assumptions as to what the founders would have thought. I'm merely pointing out that a strict constitutionalist interpretation of The Second Amendment cannot prohibit my possession of said devices.
I'm assuming that you agree with the prohibition of the private possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. If so, you agree that the "right to bear arms" can, and should, be "infringed" by government edict.
I have a different interpretation. Arms means, and meant, weapons. If you look at the etymology of the word "arms" it referred to the weapons warriors used or even more broadly to the instruments of warfare. Things like armor and shields can even be considered arms.
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.
The government turned on us 31/2 years ago. We will take it back in November...
Many more years that that..... FDR did when he deemed gold illegal and broke the money...
After JFK was killed the gun grabbers came on and they managed to break the govt more, and we are still in that fight today. There are many more examples.
Because the Constitution as a whole is based on the ability to be changed and amended.
At the moment I'm waiting for something to deal with the 1st line in the 1st section of the 14th.
You lost me.... i would think the 2nd sentace has more meat.
They're only bombs if they are designed to detonate. I can easily fit into my hand and carry a vial filled with bio-toxins or chemicals. I need only open or break the vial to release the contents.
Whats with this I and I and I can, if you don't have these ??? You said you did right?
I don't possess any "mad devices", nor would I take it upon myself to make any revisionist assumptions as to what the founders would have thought. I'm merely pointing out that a strict constitutionalist interpretation of The Second Amendment cannot prohibit my possession of said devices.
I'm assuming that you agree with the prohibition of the private possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. If so, you agree that the "right to bear arms" can, and should, be "infringed" by government edict.
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..
See that cannon? That is not a fire arm! it is not a bomb either, but it could launch a bomb....
I am the guy on the far right.....
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.
