The proof part? Who says they aren’t arms? The radical courts?
There you go again, spouting the nonsense about weapons that are not arms.
But then, you can have grenades, flamethrowers, etc., so your point is invalid anyway.
Who decided the legal definition for the word “arm?” Where can one find the list oft weaponry the 2nd was intended to protect? Please don’t cite a radical court finding, either. Those don’t count, apparently.
So cite the list of weaponry specifically left for us by the founders that they intended to protect with the 2nd.
Thanks for making my point. That’s the only phrase in the ruling that you remember, in spite of the fact that you have been reminded numerous times that the key ruling is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The only limitations on any Constitutional Right is set forth in the Constitution itself. In a word, no right can be abridged or suspended without Due Process.
Due process is such a waste of time when you are violating people’s rights.
Which is all beside the point being made in this thread.
The entire point of this thread is lawless sheriffs putting their personal interpretations of the 2nd over the laws of their states.
Not you.
The Dctionary in common use in 1789 says so.
If the Constitution used the word “gay” would you think they were referring to homosexuals?
Bzzzt. Try again. Need that list.
We are not talking about legal definitions, we are talking about common usage at the time the Document was penned. And there is no list. The term “arms” is inclusive, just like the words “speech” and “religion” are inclusive in the 1st.
“Common usage.” So just whatever people can use today to back their arguments.
You’re sort of making the argument for the anti-gun crowd right now that the only arms protected we’re the ones during that time.
Reference to due process with regard to abridging Rights was a key point in the Heller descision.
You’re the one who has been driving this discussion about the 2nd Amendment. Does this sudden shift of attention back to the OP mean you are finally giving up on your fallacious arguments?
No … you don’t. “Arms” covers it all.
The meaning of words is locked in to the definition and usage at the time that the words were written into a document. The word “arms” is an inclusive term for a category of weapons, not for specific types and makes of weapons. It’s use no more limits weapons in that category to the specific weapons in use at that time, than the word “speech” in the 1st limits you today to oral, pen & paper and hand set and cranked presses. Your assertion is patently ridiculous.
I still say I’m right.
You neither disputed nor refuted anything I just said. Arms just means whatever people making the argument want it to mean.
Whoosh.
The entire point has been that sheriffs don’t get to decide the meanings of laws based upon their personal feelings about the 2nd, but that is what these sheriffs are doing.
Various states have voted to enact gun laws and that is in accordance with Scalia saying that the rights protected by the second are not unlimited.
The proper recourse for the sheriffs would be to file a lawsuit if they think these laws are unconstitutional, not refuse to do their jobs the way that Kim Davis did.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all the people in public service would follow their oaths like these fine sheriffs? What a country we would have then.
What’s the difference between these infringements on firearms and states passing voter ID laws?
