What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[uscitizen]

The constitution does not mention firearms does it? just arms?

Yes everyone has the right to Bare Arms. Darn muslims....

The word arms was a term used to discribe military weaponary.

that is of course one intrepretation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution does not mention firearms does it? just arms?

Yes everyone has the right to Bare Arms. Darn muslims....

The word arms was a term used to discribe military weaponary.

that is of course one intrepretation.

Actually I am correct.

[This study is original historical research and analysis
prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,]
RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE

SECOND AMENDMENT:

NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE

"TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES

OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791


Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

 

[Shoobis1]

Given the purpose of the 2nd Amendment – to ensure that the people would always have access to an effective means of exercising their right to self defense, individually and/or collectively - what kinds of firearms does the 2nd Amendment protect?

Handguns: Revolvers, single shot
Handguns: Magazine-fed semi-autos
Shotguns: Pump/lever/bolt action, single shot, double barreled
Shotguns: Semi-auto
Rifles..: Bolt/lever/slide action, single shot
Rifles..: Magazine-fed semi-auto, ‘assault weapons’
Rifles..: Automatic rifles, assault rifles, battle rifles
Rifles..: Magazine/belt fed machineguns
All of the above
None of the above

Please be sure to explain your response.

This is a troublesome question that the founding fathers didn't have to think about, or else they might have written the second amendment to be more specific. The original intent of the second amendment was to protect people from tyranny from the government. The people had access to all the same weapons the government did. But in an age of nuclear weapons, it doesn't make sense to let just anyone have whatever weapons they want. But I think as many kinds of weapons as possible should be allowed. Basically anything that could easily be quelled by a well-trained police force. Maybe everything that's not fully automatic should be allowed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Given the purpose of the 2nd Amendment – to ensure that the people would always have access to an effective means of exercising their right to self defense, individually and/or collectively - what kinds of firearms does the 2nd Amendment protect?

Handguns: Revolvers, single shot
Handguns: Magazine-fed semi-autos
Shotguns: Pump/lever/bolt action, single shot, double barreled
Shotguns: Semi-auto
Rifles..: Bolt/lever/slide action, single shot
Rifles..: Magazine-fed semi-auto, ‘assault weapons’
Rifles..: Automatic rifles, assault rifles, battle rifles
Rifles..: Magazine/belt fed machineguns
All of the above
None of the above

Please be sure to explain your response.

This is a troublesome question that the founding fathers didn't have to think about, or else they might have written the second amendment to be more specific. The original intent of the second amendment was to protect people from tyranny from the government. The people had access to all the same weapons the government did. But in an age of nuclear weapons, it doesn't make sense to let just anyone have whatever weapons they want. But I think as many kinds of weapons as possible should be allowed. Basically anything that could easily be quelled by a well-trained police force. Maybe everything that's not fully automatic should be allowed.

You doubled back on yourself. Tyranny is tyranny no matter what century it takes place in, and that well trained police force could be used to quell decent with the government.

 

[CMike]

We are talking about firearms not all weapons.

A missile isn't a firearm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, neither Brian nor bigrebnc nor Satan have demonstrated the extension of the Patriot Act gave the government powers. Their own links and the posts of others have demonstrated this is the same Patriot Act of before.

Two, no one cares other than for debating purposes that the 2nd Amendment means bearing anything other than personal weapons. Poor little bigreb is not going to get a missile guided frigate for his bathtub and Brian will not get his own fighter jest. Two insist otherwise is simply moronic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One, neither Brian nor bigrebnc nor Satan have demonstrated the extension of the Patriot Act gave the government powers. Their own links and the posts of others have demonstrated this is the same Patriot Act of before.

Two, no one cares other than for debating purposes that the 2nd Amendment means bearing anything other than personal weapons. Poor little bigreb is not going to get a missile guided frigate for his bathtub and Brian will not get his own fighter jest. Two insist otherwise is simply moronic.

I liked wha Mike said a missle isn't a firearm.

One, neither Brian nor bigrebnc nor Satan have demonstrated the extension of the Patriot Act gave the government powers. Their own links and the posts of others have demonstrated this is the same Patriot Act of before.

I have asked you fifthy times to give something other than your opinion to prove that the patriot act wasn't expanded. I have shown proof that it has. Opinions like yours is meaningless without some type of facts to give you some support.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are talking about firearms not all weapons.

A missile isn't a firearm.

Never mind that to argue the 2nd protects the right to missiles cedes the point that it protects all classes of firearms.

I often wonder why people bother with the missile/warplane/warship/nuke line of argument - there's no purpose to it whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have posted over and over the evidence that clearly demonstrates that (1) the Act is an extension, (2) not an expansion of powers, and (3) that your links support my point and destroys yours.

I remember when you are trying to argue that Hitler was a socialist your own pieces of evidence destroyed your premise. A half dozen of us calmly demonstrated that you had destroyed your own argument and watched you self implode.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But I think as many kinds of weapons as possible should be allowed. Basically anything that could easily be quelled by a well-trained police force. Maybe everything that's not fully automatic should be allowed.

If the purpose is to resist tyranny, how can you then argue that the people should have lesser weaponry than the police, to ensure that the police can 'quell'>

Given that the 2nd is all about killing people, presumeably people that are shooting back, why prohibit automatic weapons?

 

[Againsheila]

Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so we could overthrow an unjust government.

 

[Big Fitz]

Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so we could overthrow an unjust government.

we're almost there unfortunately. Hence why the push to disarm the threat.

 

[jillian]

Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so we could overthrow an unjust government.

if that were true they wouldn't have gone on to make treason the only crime included in the constitution.

 

[xsited1]

Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so we could overthrow an unjust government.

if that were true they wouldn't have gone on to make treason the only crime included in the constitution.

But the Founders committed treason by declaring independence in the United States.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have posted over and over the evidence that clearly demonstrates that (1) the Act is an extension, (2) not an expansion of powers, and (3) that your links support my point and destroys yours.

I remember when you are trying to argue that Hitler was a socialist your own pieces of evidence destroyed your premise. A half dozen of us calmly demonstrated that you had destroyed your own argument and watched you self implode.

I have posted over and over the evidence that clearly demonstrates that (1) the Act is an extension, (2) not an expansion of powers, and (3) that your links support my point and destroys yours.

No you haven't, all you have posted is your opinion.

I remember when you are trying to argue that Hitler was a socialist your own pieces of evidence destroyed your premise. A half dozen of us calmly demonstrated that you had destroyed your own argument and watched you self implode

When you're a dictator everything belongs to the state. Their was no free market in nazi germany, everything went to the war effort and to the state. SOCIALISM

 

[BrianH]

I have posted over and over the evidence that clearly demonstrates that (1) the Act is an extension, (2) not an expansion of powers, and (3) that your links support my point and destroys yours.

I remember when you are trying to argue that Hitler was a socialist your own pieces of evidence destroyed your premise. A half dozen of us calmly demonstrated that you had destroyed your own argument and watched you self implode.

Yeah whatever. I'm done attempting to talk sense into you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms so we could overthrow an unjust government.

if that were true they wouldn't have gone on to make treason the only crime included in the constitution.

There you go again, talking about things of which you know nothing.

There's also:
-Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas
-Counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

No need to thank me.

 

[uscitizen]

How about swords, knives, bows and arrows, etc They are apparently not constitutionally protected.

 

[BrianH]

How about swords, knives, bows and arrows, etc They are apparently not constitutionally protected.

Those are arms. These....

Are Not

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have posted over and over the evidence that clearly demonstrates that (1) the Act is an extension, (2) not an expansion of powers, and (3) that your links support my point and destroys yours.

I remember when you are trying to argue that Hitler was a socialist your own pieces of evidence destroyed your premise. A half dozen of us calmly demonstrated that you had destroyed your own argument and watched you self implode.

<snip>

Yeah, whatever. You try this bull shit in the army and you would be thrown out, in business and you would be fired, and at university you would flunk out.

Move out, loser.