Are knives arms?

[Bobob]

Well regulated, at the time the 2nd was written, meant " in good working order"
It has zip to do with laws.

I meant "regulated" today, rather than prevented today

 

[Likkmee]

If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?

Why are they called "arms" ? Mine is as big as yer leg

 

[EvMetro]

If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?

According to lefties, sticks and stones are considered arms. Just check with the J6 hoaxers what an armed insurrection is.

 

[westwall]

I meant "regulated" today, rather than prevented today

Yeah, but the 2nd was written for a specific reason. That is why it was worded as carefully as it was. Remember, in colonial America the first artillery unit was PRIVATE.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?

Tasers are. Guns are. Can't see a rational argument against knives.

 

[Bobob]

Yeah, but the 2nd was written for a specific reason. That is why it was worded as carefully as it was. Remember, in colonial America the first artillery unit was PRIVATE.

It was worded that way only for that time in our history. The future, as we know it, was unimaginable.

 

[toobfreak]

If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?

I would have to say that the protection is implied. But I wouldn't expect it to hold up in court.

After all, a militia can be armed with a sword, and what is a sword but a long knife? If you mount a bayonet onto your rifle, are you more or less or better armed?

Cannot an armory stock knives and swords? Can you not have an arsenal of weapons? Isn't a knife a weapon? So can't you have an arsenal of knives and swords?

Still, I wouldn't expect the argument to easily hold up in court without a fight as gthey already think we are far too much armed.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf#:~:text=Knives%20are%20clearly%20among%20the%20%E2%80%9Carms%E2%80%9D%20which%20are,%20law-abiding%20citizens%20for%20lawful%20purposes%2C%E2%80%9D%20including%20self-defense.

 

[westwall]

It was worded that way only for that time in our history. The future, as we know it, was unimaginable.

You are categorically wrong. Any sample reading of the Founders thoughts, as regards the 2nd, is very clear that they meant it for the duration of the country.

 

[Bobob]

You are categorically wrong. Any sample reading of the Founders thoughts, as regards the 2nd, is very clear that they meant it for the duration of the country.

Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.

 

[westwall]

Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.

Cannon were the "assault weapon" of the day. Normal everyday people had them. You think an assault weapon is bad, look at the damage a 12 pounder Napoleon loaded with grape shot will do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.

George Washington would have, unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Change my mind.

 

[toobfreak]

George Washington would have, unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Change my mind.

Let's ask George himself:

 

[Winco]

I carry both.

Awesome.
As you should and you have that RIGHT.

 

[Bobob]

George Washington would have, unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Change my mind.

George Washington ?

 

[Bobob]

According to lefties, sticks and stones are considered arms. Just check with the J6 hoaxers what an armed insurrection is.

Ya mean that they invaded our Capitol with sticks and stones?

 

[EvMetro]

Ya mean that they invaded our Capitol with sticks and stones?

You do not sound very informed. Nobody had any guns at the j6 event other than law enforcement, yet lefties promote the notion that j6 was an armed insurrection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

George Washington ?

Yes. You know - one of the founders of this country
A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
So...
Change my mind.

 

[Bobob]

Yes. You know - one of the founders of this country
A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
So...
Change my mind.

Today's weapons are a far cry from the muskets used in Washington's America. Nobody in their right mind would approve of the weaponry that is available to today's gun owners. Unnecessary, for sure.
AK47? C'mon man!! I do not care about your mind set. I care that our gun laws are not being enforced and gun ownership not regulated. Guns are readily available to buy and are in the hands of the wrong people, the Menéndez brothers being prime examples. Can you procure them illegally? Sure, but why do that when you can buy all you want legally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, not just knives but also swords, battle axes, maybe a mace or a halberd.

...and Nunchucks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes. You know - one of the founders of this country
A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
So...
Change my mind.

Also, an American expressing his personal, subjective opinion – and as already correctly noted, an opinion that is meaningless, completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and not to ‘deter’ government tyranny.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that sanctions insurrectionist dogma, nothing that authorizes the people to engage in an act of treason by taking up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people – the Founding Generation did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they had just created.