Is the right to bear arms all about guns?

Because most people dont want other weapons.

People selectively read what they want into the constitution.

So if you want guns but dont want them regulated you skip the part that says “well regulated”

but I have always wondered exactly as you have, If the NRA was being consistent why dont I have a right to own nuclear weapons? They are “arms” after all

Originally it was about all weapons, including swords and archery equipment. For example, Jews were prohibited from carrying any sort of arms (the accounts of the pogrom at York suggest we ignored the law, though the law meant we couldn’t train publicly in their use). Their are some medieval books, in Hebrew, on “fencing” which at the time referred to unarmed combat (similar to what is now called martial arts or krav maga). Originally only people of a certain class had the right to bear arms (meaning weapons you carried, catapults or ballisticas were never considered arms), and no in the US argues that the right to bear arms refers to anything larger than hand held personal weapons – though arguably the 2nd amendment also protects the right of the states to have a fully equipped militia, which all the states have decided is too expensive.

By the 18th century, however, firearms had become the standard weapons. Swords were mainly for “show”, and pikes were only of use in helping to direct the soldiers (the guns fired slowly, so it was important in battles to arrange formations so someone was always firing so the other guys couldn’t run up and stab you while you were reloading). Arguably by the late 18th century swords were still covered, but by the mid-19th century swords became totally obsolete (some armies still use them, but it usually resulted in the sword-carrying soldiers getting shot).

akuperma

“nd no in the US argues that the right to bear arms refers to anything larger than hand held personal weapons “

I beleive Reb yi’ds question is why not?

Here is the text:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I think what rebyid means is that, if the right to bear arms is as absolute as many claim, why is it limited to guns? IT doesnt say guns. I have a right to own swords, grenades, anti aircraft weapons and nuclear weapons all of which are “Arms” (and bazookas, and grenades are both carried so even with your limited definition of “arms” I should ahve a right to those) Especially when you consider that many argue the reason for the individual right is to protect agaisnt a tyranical government ( i.e for the “security of a FREE state”) Well, we cant due that with just guns .

The right to bear arms always referred to arms that you carried yourself. In the past it never referred to anything such as artillery. If you had the right to bear arms, it meant you had the right to go around wearing armour and carrying a sword or other hand weapon. If you didn’t have the right to bear arms (the case with Jews), you didn’t. No one was talking about anything larger. If no one in the 18th century (or earlier) thought the right to bear arms referred to weapons one couldn’t carry, then even an originalist would hold they weren’t covered.

Since the 2nd amendment refers to the state militia, it arguably would allow New York for example (that means Albany, not Gracie Mansion) to possess tanks, warships, etc. In modern times, the states aren’t interested and the “state” National Guard is equipped by the Federal treasury.

I thought the right to bare arms was a tznius issue.

Let it what? Keep eating without a bracha?

I think RebYidd has a good question- if the emphasis is on “bear”, what you can carry, and not on “arms”, then originally the second amendment would have meant a rifle or sword and not a cannon. Nowadays, a literal interpretation could mean a pistol, machine gun, grenade, hand held SAM, etc. But there are gun laws that limit what can be owned, whether it can be concealed, who can own it, what sort of training you need etc. In other words, the constitutional right to bear arms has been limited/interpreted to adjust to a new reality. I guess the NRA knows which battles to pick.

It’s really not all that different from freedom of speech or assembly- these too are limited, e.g. for safety reasons, or if it is done intentionally to harm someone else (libel).

In other words, one individual’s rights are always looked at in balance with the rights of other individuals or the public as a whole.

Avi K: lol I thought you were seriously before the Umm Umm

If people were armed with extremely impregnated mosquitos, pro-NRA Americans would surely reconsider.

Besides created a health problem, this can be defeated with bug repellent.

There are laws restricting what can be carried in public such as the size of the blade and how fast a knife can be opened. If you need to create a mace take the ends off a can and punch tack through it. Then attach them with the points sticking out to a stick and you have an effective weapon.

What if this was at an airport? Someone brings a suitcase full of extremely impregnated mosquitos. Unzips by security and then what? People wouldn’t realize until after. Extended length flights (JFk to OGG) would be so uncomfortable.

Anyone dressing tzniusly would see the hand of Hashem sparing their arms and legs. Bare arms, the first to succumb.

Using pesticides indoors is a health concern of its own.

You can make mace out of any can? Canned yams?

It’s not all about guns, but the 2nd amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Hence, well regulated means gun control.

What if I want to carry plastic knuckles as a self defense weapon? There is currently no way to license that in NY and it is illegal to carry any weapon without a license. I am not interested in getting a gun license at the moment. I don’t want to kill anyone. I just want to have a chance to run away if someone attacks me. Unless I injure them the assailant would likely be the faster runner. Shouldn’t my constitutional right to bear arms include a knife, or plastic knuckles?

I don’t care very much how difficult it is to regulate the use of knuckles. I care more about how effective it is at self-defense. Plastic knuckles aren’t a very good attack weapon since you actually have to be really close to the person you’re trying to use them on. Unlike a knife, throwing them at someone won’t do a lot of harm.

“swords became totally obsolete (some armies still use them”

For esprit d’corps

There was a british commando who always went into battle with a sword on his side

Because ” a gentleman wears a sword”