3 ms·
The second amendment applies to arms, not to munitions directly. At the time of its authoring, "arms" was understood to mean devices used by one person for the
by jMyles 11y ago
The second amendment applies to arms, not to munitions directly. At the time of its authoring, "arms" was understood to mean devices used by one person for the purpose of targeting one person or thing.
It have never, for example, applied to ordnance. (hence, the asinine argument "where does it end - should we allow everyone to have nukes?!" does make any sense, at least politically)
- spdustin 11y agoI've always believed (and have understood to be the consensus from legal references I've seen in the past) that the definition of taking up arms was related to their use to defend oneself against an oppressive opponent. Is that not how it is seen in the courts?
- geggam 11y agoShame all those privateers with cannons were running around obliterating your argument
- 15155 11y ago> At the time of its authoring, "arms" was understood to mean devices used by one person for the purpose of targeting one person or thing. It also meant cannons (which are crew-served), and up through the War of 1812 and beyond, privateers owned the vast majority of them.
- jMyles 11y agoSo, I've not been able to actually dig up an answer to this: Were cannons protected by the 2nd amendment? Or merely not prohibited in a legal environment in which the government claimed the authority to prohibit them? I can't find any reference to discussion of cannons as "bearing arms."