ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

they knew the word "firearm" in 1776 bro. they started using the term in the 1500's.

why doesn't the Constitution say "firearm"?

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

they knew the word "firearm" in 1776 bro. they started using the term in the 1500's.

why doesn't the Constitution say "firearm"?

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense." Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.

The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for self-defense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."

The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment. The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm, in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment, such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense."

The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol, due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. "'Pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and ... the right to bear such arms ... cannot be infringed." Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people. The smallest handgun designed by Smith & Wesson "was such a small revolver that it was nicknamed the Ladysmith, since it seemed to be more suitable for a woman's small hand." The relatively high cost of rifles as compared to pistols suggests that a ban on ownership or possession of low-caliber handguns would effectively negate any right of the poor to bear firearms for their self-defense.

There has been little scholarship concerning whether certain edged weapons and blunt instruments are "arms" in a constitutional sense. The knife is one of mankind's oldest tools and weapons. Pocketknives were in use when the second amendment was adopted. It is questionable whether "switchblade" knives with the modern convenience of a spring-assisted blade may be banned any more than could modern firearms which no longer rely on a flintlock mechanism. The staff and the club, mankind's oldest defensive weapons, are clearly constitutionally protected.

Since "arms" under the second amendment are those which an individual is capable of bearing, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy ordnances are not constitutionally protected. Nor are other dangerous and unusual weapons, such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, and other devices which, while capable of being carried by hand, have never been commonly possessed for self-defense. Blunt and edged instruments and firearms are capable of being used against a violent assailant in such a manner as not to endanger the innocent. In contrast, explosive devices may be incapable of pinpointing an aggressor, thus harming the innocent as well as the guilty.

this is why grenades, and explosives in general (like your assertion that was should have nukes) aren't authorized for civilians to bear.

[Humerox]

But if you don't believe me ask old George...

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences (sic) and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.


George Washington
First President of the United States

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But if you don't believe me ask old George...

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences (sic) and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.


George Washington
First President of the United States

I think these were examples of arms, and not a definition to the exclusion of all else.

[Humerox]

Second time you've posted that argument Harm.

It does a good job of saying what someone thinks the Constitution says. But the Constitution doesn't say that.

[Humerox]

The article was pointing out that the founding fathers damn well knew what "firearms" were and chose not to include that word in the second amendment.

JFC.

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The article was pointing out that the founding fathers damn well knew what "firearms" were and chose not to include that word in the second amendment.

JFC.

They said arms because it includes more weapons than just firearms. I don't understand why we are talking about this. We're a couple of posts from someone copypasting a dictionary entry, which pretty much means the thread is dead.

[Humerox]

And Justice Scalia trumps the Oregon Court with:

When asked by Chris Wallace if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-
round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Justice Scalia declined to speculate. However, he did say:

'We’ll see. I mean, obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that
cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear — so it doesn’t apply to cannons. But
I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will
have to be … decided.'

[Harmonium]

It's what the Oregon Supreme Court "thinks"

It also goes on to logically address why they didn't just say "fire arms"

Because the second amendment also lets me have a knife. or a club.

the term "firearm" is too narrow for the intended use in the second amendment.

Have i broken it down enough for you or do you want to be spoon fed some more?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They said arms because it includes more weapons than just firearms.

Thank you. that was what I said.