your second amendment rights

I get linked to there since I got NRA membership a few months ago...links to articles get sent to my inbox every few days or so. Good informative information though, it has linked me a couple times to state specific legislation regarding both firearms and edged weaponry. The FBI crime data stats are especially interesting on there too.

Tread carefully with the location of this thread though, political stuff and such.
 
It's interesting how the Second Amendment (1791) always gets tied to firearms..

Well I do believe this was the intent of the founding fathers. Knives and other blades (hawks, axes etc) were seen as tools back then.
 
Well I do believe this was the intent of the founding fathers. Knives and other blades (hawks, axes etc) were seen as tools back then.

Didn't many militaries at this time have general issue combat knives and sabres though?
 
The NRA/ILA & Doug Ritter at Knife Rights.com are the two best things going right now. Without them, I believe it wouldn't be long at all before the 2nd Amendment was comp-letely re-written to make all of us criminals and felons. Everyone on here should be an active member of both of these organizations IMHO.
You can't be a true user nowadays without being a supporter also.
 
Didn't many militaries at this time have general issue combat knives and sabres though?

No. These items were purchased by the owners' own expense when authorized to carry them. The second amendment applied to firearms; the idea of it encompassing knives and other weapons is pretty much a later 20th Century idea.
 
No. These items were purchased by the owners' own expense when authorized to carry them. The second amendment applied to firearms; the idea of it encompassing knives and other weapons is pretty much a later 20th Century idea.

Who says? The word is 'arms' and that is not limited to what may be issued to a soldier nor is it listed to one specific species (firearm) of arm. I'd think any citizen protected by such a magnificently worded Constitutional Amendment would be interested in retaining to himself as much flexibility and as much right as possible.

It's not for our government (at any level) to declare what arms we may or may not bear - the Second Amendment forbids this. We have a runaway and out of control federal government at the moment and the citizens of many states are just as bad off with their state and local governments as well. By no stretch of the imagination is this the time to relax one iota of our protection of our rights.
 
It is important to remember context. The founding fathers had seen all manner of weapons banned by government(s), and as a result, the most common use of standing armies was against the citizens, not other armies.

Arms was inclusive and not an exclusive concept, and would have covered every weapon known at the time; from the quarterstaff to the pike, from the sword to the battleaxe, and from the musket to the cannon.

This was to guarantee that the first right of free speech be upheld as well as the other rights that were endowed by the Creator...and this was the critical concept: Man's rights came from God and could not be curtailed by government. This is why the Founders required a moral, religious people.

John Locke wrote many essays that provided the groundwork for our Founder's philosophy of government. One of those was "A Letter Concerning Toleration". Some of the key principles were that different religions be allowed equally because they espoused moral, ethical behavior, and that the "church" be expelled from political authority; for example, people were going to prison for missing church.

Locke proposed men be allowed to practice the religion of their choice: freedom of religion. Note that he never suggested freedom from religion. In fact, the only class of people who were not to be tolerated were the Atheist; for he had no moral or ethical basis for his creed or his behavior, and could not be trusted.
 
It is important to remember context. The founding fathers had seen all manner of weapons banned by government(s), and as a result, the most common use of standing armies was against the citizens, not other armies.

Arms was inclusive and not an exclusive concept, and would have covered every weapon known at the time; from the quarterstaff to the pike, from the sword to the battleaxe, and from the musket to the cannon.

This was to guarantee that the first right of free speech be upheld as well as the other rights that were endowed by the Creator...and this was the critical concept: Man's rights came from God and could not be curtailed by government. This is why the Founders required a moral, religious people.

John Locke wrote many essays that provided the groundwork for our Founder's philosophy of government. One of those was "A Letter Concerning Toleration". Some of the key principles were that different religions be allowed equally because they espoused moral, ethical behavior, and that the "church" be expelled from political authority; for example, people were going to prison for missing church.

Locke proposed men be allowed to practice the religion of their choice: freedom of religion. Note that he never suggested freedom from religion. In fact, the only class of people who were not to be tolerated were the Atheist; for he had no moral or ethical basis for his creed or his behavior, and could not be trusted.

*Very* well spoken!

:thumbup:
 
Who says? The word is 'arms' and that is not limited to what may be issued to a soldier nor is it listed to one specific species (firearm) of arm. I'd think any citizen protected by such a magnificently worded Constitutional Amendment would be interested in retaining to himself as much flexibility and as much right as possible.

It's not for our government (at any level) to declare what arms we may or may not bear - the Second Amendment forbids this. We have a runaway and out of control federal government at the moment and the citizens of many states are just as bad off with their state and local governments as well. By no stretch of the imagination is this the time to relax one iota of our protection of our rights.

No one is disputing that we should relax, so this is a non-argument. However, the original intent of the Second *was* firearms as I said, and there's a lot of material to support that historically. The British prohibited many individuals from private ownership of firearms, but not weapons ownership in general. To prevent this from happening further, Jefferson used the word arms (not weapons) in the Bill of Rights.

To Joe-Bob's point, not *all* weapons were banned by the British, nor were familiar tools such as knives and axes. Firearms were even then a great equalizer, and they were usually fully restricted in the urban areas. Many agrarian Americans certainly had firearms and had them in considerable numbers. However, yes: some military weapons were generally out of the public's reach...and in order to form a well-regulated militia--well, we know the rest.

Today the second amendment covers a lot of ground, and certaintly covers all types of firearms. But there isn't a lot of Constitutional cases to say it covers every imaginable weapon, no matter how much knife enthusiasts need it to...however I think as folks continue to point to everything as a weapon, eventually the SCOTUS will need to decide one way or another. I just hope the Justices are weapon friendly when that day comes. They're not entirely friendly today to the concept.
 
Last edited:
Didn't many militaries at this time have general issue combat knives and sabres though?

back then, nothing was standard issue...if you wanted to fight, you had to either own the firearm, uniform (most cases peoples uniforms were nothing more than their actual clothes, not all in gray or blue uniforms like hollywood would like you to believe), any blade you wanted to carry, etc...
 
back then, nothing was standard issue...if you wanted to fight, you had to either own the firearm, uniform (most cases peoples uniforms were nothing more than their actual clothes, not all in gray or blue uniforms like hollywood would like you to believe), any blade you wanted to carry, etc...

This is correct. This was true well into the Civil War, and even until the very late 19th Century.
 
in order to form a well-regulated militia

Are you confusing

the Second Amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed)

with the Preamble to the Constitution (We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.)?

I don't mean to argue with you either but the right protected by the Second Amendment (to keep and bear arms) isn't protected for the benefit of a militia, nor to form a militia, nor is it predicated on the existence of a militia.
 
You are correct--thanks for the catch!

And no, I think outside my typo, you and I are in agreement how the Second Amendment *should be* interpreted today.
 
Back
Top