The Right to Bear Arms - What Constitutes "Arms"?

#1

This is the ultimate important topic when it comes to an overbearing government. It’s about the people having the means to defend themselves against violence against the individual and from the tyranny of government.

But just what do people think is “arms”?

The government obviously is trying to prevent the public from having tools that the military and police use and that effort won’t stop. The government doesn’t want to be outgunned by the public. Kind of obvious.

But do citizens have the right to bear suppressors or scopes, or tripods or large capacity magazines? I say no.

HOWEVER, the Constitution does not say citizens cannot own such things. It is politicians that are saying it based on their own opinions. An opinion is not law.

Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own such weapon accessories. Whether such devices are needed is irrelevant.

7 Likes
Take The Gun Poll Here
The Debate Thread
#2

Arms are things attached to your shoulders and hands. :stuck_out_tongue:

As for governments, they’re trying to use ammunition and similar tools as loopholes to ban guns. It’s all or nothing. If I wanted a nuke just because I happened to feel like it one day, then I’d get one. Guess what, you can get one too, if you’d like. Thank you for the inspiration, Kaitlin Bennett.

3 Likes
#3

Interesting. For a crowd that is patriotic and wants to defend the Constitution, there is an amazing lack of responses.

2 Likes
#4

Not everyone is going to want to view a topic that has actual intellect in it, but rather the controversial stuff that can make people angry. This is probably why social media has become so addicting to many.

2 Likes
#5

EXECELLENT point.

Lots of talk, but no action or knowledge. Pathetic, and the very reason why the US is in the state that it is. A bunch of uneducated lazy Americans standing around complaining and wondering what happened.

3 Likes
#6

Or being conditioned to think compromise is good, when in all reality they’re getting nothing out of the deal. Perhaps this is why satire has its place in the world: To show that when you’ve given this inch, here’s what will happen with the mile they take. Obviously satire is being demonized, and it’s fully understandable why, because they don’t want the hypothetical yet actual goal exposed in the open. Remember the old tale about the frog and the stove.

2 Likes
#7

I think Binny put it best just the other day on Al’s show. They are monitoring everyone all the time.
Are we talking about Arms or power. Binny said anyone that has power or influence, anyone that can effect change. We need to level the playing field, we need GOV to be more afraid of the people,
and the people LESS afraid of it’s government. And the tech and tools are HERE, we just need to wake the sheeple.

1 Like
#8

I consider being monitored as a given. I expect it.

We are talking “right to bear arms” as stated in the Constitution. Like I said, what is “arms”?

The idea is to get people to think about their rights and to come to a proper understanding of what their Constitution actually says.

Ignorance is not bliss, it’s suicide.

3 Likes
#9

I guess that is the real problem now, bear arms, human arms, what is an arm,
something to defend once’s self, and also something that might be joined with many
others to over through a criminal establishment. But how do “YOU” or the current GOV
define it? It seems right now, depends where you are physically, like definitely not at an airport.
And beyond that a list of rules so long who could possible know them all, this city not that one.
this state not that one, this kind, with this capacity except on SUNDAY?
I seem to remember something about unfringed?

1 Like
#10

Perhaps a rephrase to get the point across would be more prudent here:

Is the firearm itself considered “arms”?
Is the ammunition considered “arms”?
Are add-on tools to the firearm itself considered “arms”?

Governments are back-door enacting gun controls by saying no to the latter two. They know they can’t say no to the first one, so they’re trying to render the implement useless. However, all three are very much, at least in my opinion, considered “arms”.

Since the dawn of time, people have been using ambiguity and “loopholes” to circumvent laws and regulations they disagree with. It’s no wonder that government create thousands, sometimes millions of codes in order to address loopholes that get used. Is this a case where US Code needs to be used to create that sort of definition?

2 Likes
#11

Great points and is the intent of the thread. Thank you.

Personally, I believe that no, that last two are not considered “arms”. Ammo is a part of a firearm. Goes without saying. Accessories such as a scope, are just that accessories. They are not needed for the operation of the firearm as designed.

That said, nowhere does it say that “arms” are firearms. Some make a case that it is referring to a gun, but I believe pretty much anything could be an arm/weapon. To the extreme, even a bullet could be an arm, but that’s a real stretch. More like clubs, swords, knives, even rocks. But the spirit of the amendment I do feel they were referring to a firearm primarily.

I hesitate to use the US Code to clarify the Constitution. A slippery slope. I’d lean more towards amending the Constitution if in fact any clarification is really needed. Great point, but it would need much dialog and thought.

2 Likes
#12

Beyond the USA and our laws what works for humans?
We can’t give everyone a button to blow up the world, that won’t work.
But we should absolutely be able to defend our homes and family.
And I think we should be in numbers a formidable force, that no GOVERNMENT
of this PLANET can put down. So it is a very TALL ORDER, but one we
flesh and blood should share together.

1 Like
#13

In my opinion we have the RIGHT to have and use BumpStocks, Suppressors etc.; as well as the actual weapons that go together with these accessories…

It’s ALL about Freedom…The remaining 99% of gun owners MUST not be penalized for the EVIL actions of the 1% of Psychopaths…

3 Likes
#14

If they’re not considered arms, then they’re able to be prohibited by the Constitution as it is today. But then it’s mentioned that it’s part of a firearm, which would make it “arms”.

The dictionary defines “arm” as a means of offense or defense. If we go based on the dictionary, then all three are considered arms. The scope is certainly considered one because, especially at longer distances, it is necessary in order to properly aim the firearm, which could also include a crossbow.

The spirit of the amendment would include all three. If you don’t have the second or the third, what’s the point of the first? You wouldn’t be able to use it.

1 Like
#15

Technically I’d consider ammunition and guns as “arms”, as well as anything that constitutes the modern solder accessories. So laser scopes being a standard addition on the rifle platform, added for the purpose of proper operation, thus definitely part of arms.

1 Like
#16

Now that is simply not true. I earned marksman ribbon from the US Navy using an M1 Garand and we shot at 200 yards, iron sites.

A scope for a crossbow? That’s absurd. They don’t have a range long enough to even need a scope. Seriously. That’s the same stupid shit I’ve have seen as putting scopes on shotguns.

Whether they are constitutionally protected or not, you do not need a scope or a suppressor to be HIGHLY accurate. You just need to learn how to shoot.

2 Likes
#17

Solders today use a modern tool set, we COULD all shoot muskets, it wouldn’t at all be a sound reading of “arms”.

1 Like
#18

I cannot disagree with citizens having the same arms as the military, technically. But realistically? That’s a discussion of opinion.

2 Likes
#19

Realistically…, I meant a rifleman’s and/or sniper’s equipment, excluding non-firearm weapons and fully-automatic weapons. Limitations need to be justified, and there is no legitimate justification for further restrictions.

The ONLY reason the bump-stock was understandable, is because it allows you to do a de-facto circumvention of the automatic prohibition.

1 Like
#20

Arms for me include:

Guns/Ammo
Blunt Objects
Vehicles
Swords/Knives

Well Regulated Militia should include Military Weapons, provided by the Feds/USMilitary
As seen in the original ‘Come & Take It’ Flag, it’s a Cannon, same as the US Military or an Invading Force would have at the time.

4 Likes