A federal appeals court on Friday struck down parts of New York's controversial concealed carry law but upheld most of the ban on carrying guns in "sensitive places."
Those would be supplied by the state in an emergency. The 2nd amendment was about rifles. The intent was in time of war, each person would show up with their rifle to form an army. The state would supply cannons, etc.
In the modern day, we would show up with rifles and the state would supply us the M2 and other equipment.
In some states, they actually had a law that you had to own a certain type of weapon for that reason. Standards are good. Imagine trying to supply every weird type of ammo everyone could need. That is why I have an AR-15. It is the same type of ammo as the Army. When the Army switches to the SPEAR, I will switch as well.
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
At the time arms meant the weapon you carried. You don’t carry a cannon. You don’t carry a tank. You don’t carry a M2. Those are all heavy weapons and not ‘arms’ as used historically. When states required people to muster, they didn’t demand they bring artillery. They expected them to bring arms—their rifles.
You can’t carry an M2. It’s a stationary weapon.
I am pro-Second Amendment, but the intent was never for civilians to own artillery and crew-served weapons. It was meant to allow the building of infantry units.
No it isn’t. I want an actual source, not just some random article with the equivalent of “dude, trust me” as it’s source. Beyond that, the article doesn’t make the claim you’re making, which is that the 2nd amendment excludes some weapons. Just that it definitely does include modern select fire rifles and handguns.
Those would be supplied by the state in an emergency. The 2nd amendment was about rifles. The intent was in time of war, each person would show up with their rifle to form an army. The state would supply cannons, etc.
In the modern day, we would show up with rifles and the state would supply us the M2 and other equipment.
In some states, they actually had a law that you had to own a certain type of weapon for that reason. Standards are good. Imagine trying to supply every weird type of ammo everyone could need. That is why I have an AR-15. It is the same type of ammo as the Army. When the Army switches to the SPEAR, I will switch as well.
Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?
At the time arms meant the weapon you carried. You don’t carry a cannon. You don’t carry a tank. You don’t carry a M2. Those are all heavy weapons and not ‘arms’ as used historically. When states required people to muster, they didn’t demand they bring artillery. They expected them to bring arms—their rifles.
You can’t carry an M2. It’s a stationary weapon.
I am pro-Second Amendment, but the intent was never for civilians to own artillery and crew-served weapons. It was meant to allow the building of infantry units.
https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2016/08/25/modern-weapons-founders-want-americans-n26821
Might as well include tactical nukes in “arms”.
Source on this?
It’s in the article I cited.
No it isn’t. I want an actual source, not just some random article with the equivalent of “dude, trust me” as it’s source. Beyond that, the article doesn’t make the claim you’re making, which is that the 2nd amendment excludes some weapons. Just that it definitely does include modern select fire rifles and handguns.