re: "No Amendment is absolute."

quote:

---

Pretty sure arms are defined as something that you can carry on your person and operate solely.

quote:

---

And that is in the Second Amendment where? I'll even take a US Code citation if that is all there is.

---

---

In the colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same. A colonist usually had only one gun which was used for hunting, protection, and militia duty, plus a hatchet, sword, and knife. G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution, 6-15, 252-254 (1973). When the revolutionary war began, the colonists came equipped with their hunting muskets or rifles, hatchets, swords, and knives. …

(Y)ou will need to find a dictionary which was in use in 1791. I found one a few years ago and included the definition in one of these threads, but I cannot find it now. The definition was consistent with what is set forth above.

Basically, weaponry was broken down into “arms“ (man portable) and “ordnance” (larger weaponry).

See e.g. State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980)

quote:

---

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. The term "arms” would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens.

---

it is an interesting case. It actually comes out the question from a different angle, analyzing whether a blackjack constitutes “arms“ for purposes of the second amendment.

The hypocrisy has been charming.

On Twitter, motherfrickers are like "rawr, trump must be dragged out of his house by the military for daring to not respect the constitution!". Often, they are the same people who demand the government get rid of 1a and 2a. Wouldn't surprise me if some politicians who have voted to strip away an amendment's power...are frothing at the mouth about how immoral trump's disrespect for the constitution is.

quote:

---

Once again, you agree that there are reasonable limits, right?

---

Anything the national guard can own should be legal for private citizens to own.

quote:

---

I think that the Founding Fathers envisioned a tiny standing army and participation in the militia by a huge percentage of the adult male population. I also think that they expected those militia members to be able to provide their own personal weapons.

---

I agree.

However given that context wouldn’t the assumption be that the militia’s “arms” should be adequate to perform their task at any future point in time?

And, given the circumstances wouldn’t that task include possibly revolting against an oppressive government?

It seems one sided to limit the definition of arms to 18th century weaponry given the intent of the amendment in providing capability to citizens to defend themselves from enemies foreign AND domestic at any point in the future.

quote:

---

Libel, slander, and perjury are illegal. In many places felons cannot buy weapons. Are these not infringements on the “absolutism” of the first and second amendments?

---

No and I can’t believe you think this is an argument.

You can’t do harm to others.

Generally, people that lose their rights to purchase guns took the rights of others by force. So yes, we take their rights away because they are a threat to everyone else’s life and liberty.

quote:

---

Shall not be infringed sounds pretty flipping absolute to me.

---

My god... This is about as dumb as people wanting more stimulus checks because of inflation.

An amendment's verbiage may be absolute in what it protects, but that doesn't make the amendment itself unamendable.

Thankfully that's extremely hard to do. But there is a process for it.