I misunderstood your intent then, my apologies. I won’t go so far as to a private army, although I don’t see where the constitution forbids this.
George Washington saw owning a cannon as consistent with “arms”. Some Americans even did so, in the 18th century (and still today)
However, I believe there is a limitation that was partly established in United States v. Miller ( though I could be wrong), that of discriminatory fire.
As a wielder, can you be reasonably certain, that you can both fire your weapon at your intended target, and not cause collateral damage?
In tight quarters, in an urban apartment complex, utilizing a sawed-off shot gun that’s intended to spread its fire? No, so, rules can be made about it.
Nuclear weapons face a similar quagmire, in that, there’s basically no way to use them without causing collateral damage. Same to gaseous weapons, or biological agents.
Sawed off shotguns and cannon’s however, can be used discriminantly in more wide-open surroundings, and the latter also serves a military purpose.
The SCOTUS has also ruled that killing the unborn is not murder.
The SCOTUS infringes when it is majority left but that doesn’t mean that the law is Constitutional.
As for whether or not our founders had in mind today’s ‘modern’ arms … all I can say is:
If anti-gunners want to play the game that “the 2nd Amendment only referred to muskets,” well, then the 1st Amendment only referred to hand-operated printing presses and town criers.
HOA Is “Concerned” Over A Military Tank In Front Of Houston Man’s House
A Houston-area attorney has a tank in front of a house. Not a propane tank, or a water tank. No, a full-fledged World War II battle tank, which Tony Buzbee bought last year.
He’s temporarily parked it in front of his house, which has homeowner’s association concerned. Why? Because it’s 2017.
I don’t have a bumpstock and don’t want one. They’re unreliable and stupid. That being said, I am dead set against outlawing them. The attack on the 2nd amendment is death by a thousand cuts. The only thing wrong with it is that it should have been number one. I will not forget any surrender monkeys who vote to outlaw it.
No, it is not reasonable to argue that; again, it’s bad English. Arms means arms. Any legal restriction on any type of weapon is an infringement, and is thus unconstitutional.
My take on the meaning of the phrase “keep and bear arms” is to include everything up to and including state-of-the-art, man-portable, military grade small arms. At the time that would be the long rifle, today it would include select-fire “assault rifles” . It would not include tanks, ICBM’s or nuclear weapons.
In 1776 The Brown Bess Flintlock musket was THE “Assault Weapon”. The 2nd did not say Brown Bess Musket, he said keep (that is in your home and ON YOUR PERSONS) bear (carry) Arms, (not Brown Bess, but Arms of the day, today its an AR, tomorrow it may be a Laser with settings for stun and kill and everywhere in between.
Then you have to look at the ‘Frame of Reference’ of the writers: From England mostly, Church of England, (no other religion allowed) and the peasants did not have arms, the military did and they were also the police, you hunted with a bow. So they wanted FREEDOM OF (NOT freedom FROM as the liberals have rewritten it) and they wanted a way to defend themselves and their family against tyrants as they all mostly lived in fiefdoms>
- (in feudal Europe) the property owned by a lord
- an area over which a person or organization exerts authority or influence
Which is a reasonable take on it. As is Devilneck’s “discriminatory fire” interpretation, as is FC’s view of a personal nuclear arsenal. But notice how none of you perfectly agree. It’s very plain there is no clear definition of “arms” or you’d all three agree on it. Yet you don’t. And there are many additional definitions of “arms” which are reasonable.
“keep and bear arms” is quite descriptive:
“Keep” belong to
“bear” Carry on my persons
"arms’ 10,000 lb bombs, 105mm artillery, M1 tank, etc…SURE IF you can carry it on you…DUH, try long arms, rifles, shotguns, pistols.
The Constitution was written by people who meant it to be understood by the COMMON MAN. What has occured is the today lawyers/judges say ONLY they can interpret the Constitution, not only is that WRONG but it was never the intention…
And yet it has been pointed out in the past that many of the cannons used in the American Revolution were privately owned.
My Merriam-Webster in this context says: “means (as a weapon) of offense or defense.” Admittedly, it also says: “Esp. firearm;” but the defintion doesn’t exclude anything else; try telling a Founding Father he didn’t have a right to keep and bear his sword, for example. Even with the firearms-only subdefinition, that would include everything up to nuclear artillery.
Again, I have no desire to see private nukes or many lesser weapons in the hands of any Tom, Dick, and Harry; I’m strictly definitional here.
I believe that “bearing arms” means USING arms in any conflict for offense OR defensively. The term in 1791 did NOT mean “carrying” arms. It meant USING arms (ANY arms).
In any case, it says keep and bear . . .
No argument from me, Susanna.