Pro 2nd Amend quote

[dallen1x]

State v. Kessler
The term "arms" is also subject to several interpretations. In
the colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the
same.
Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the
constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used
by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term "arms"
was not limited to firearms, but included several hand-carried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term "arms" would not have
included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or
private citizens.

(my opinion: If the drafters probably intended “arms” to include those weapons used for both personal and military defense, than should that also not apply to modern weapons used for military defense, excluding those not normally kept by militiamen or private citizens such as cannons or machine guns? If it was a musket at that point in time then the equivalent now would be the AR-15.)

Read More

 

[JackThompson]

The equivalent would now be an M4 or M16.

 

[fd15k]

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Machine guns, cannons, rocket launchers are not really in common use at this time. Which is kind of circular, since it's the government who made it difficult to obtain machine guns in 1934 and 1986, making them fall out of common use.

 

[dallen1x]

The equivalent would now be an M4 or M16.

But......take out the three round burst (quasi automatic) and the full auto (both illegal) and the closest counterpart is the AR15.

 

[notchman]

But......take out the three round burst (quasi automatic) and the full auto (both illegal) and the closest counterpart is the AR15.

It's only illegal in those states that have made it illegal to own (WA state being among them). In states where it is not prohibited you just need to submit the paperwork and the $200 tax, wait the time it takes to 'process', then complete the purchase. I won't go in to what I think about the NFA and how it infringed on our rights WRT the 2nd Amendment except to say that it was heinous.

 

[jake2far]

State v. Kessler
The term "arms" is also subject to several interpretations. In
the colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the
same.
Therefore, the term "arms" as used by the drafters of the
constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used
by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term "arms"
was not limited to firearms, but included several hand-carried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term "arms" would not have
included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or
private citizens.

(my opinion: If the drafters probably intended "arms" to include those weapons used for both personal and military defense, than should that also not apply to modern weapons used for military defense, excluding those not normally kept by militiamen or private citizens such as cannons or machine guns? If it was a musket at that point in time then the equivalent now would be the AR-15.)

Please take offense at my comments, and I mean this. People who own guns and believe in the 2nd Amend, and don't have a clue what is meant should read history. I don't care what you feel it should mean.
If you can get past being angry at me, cause people who don't understand their "Rights" and want everyone to be bound by thier beliefs make me angry, try this:
What Scalia actually said, or, Cannons For EVERYONE! (*Video*) - An NC Gun Blog

For those who profess to be an "Attorney" and want to "learn me" go get stuffed, and try Scalia, he must not know law. The Constitution is not outdated, it is easy to read and understand, and what gets "experts" upset is, it was wriiten in plain english.
Oh ya, if the Constitution is out of date, useless, transcribed by "slave owners, and has not kept up with the times, please tell me why every elected offical swears an oath to it, and every service member does the same. If you belive that it is wrong why don't you lobby to have the "oath" stopped?
The founders knew that citizens needed to be armed to match the military, it is plain language, they knew when the balance of weapon power was offset in favor of the Government enough the Government would enslave the citizens. Hell they lived and fought this very concept, they were smart enough to tell you and provide for you a common defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

Ownership of heavily armed war ships which included cannons and expolding shells is quite common in our history, oh oh oh, wait, and there was no NFA paperwork or tax stamp on each cannon and shell.


Jim

 

[fd15k]

Please take offense at my comments, and I mean this. People who own guns and believe in the 2nd Amend, and don't have a clue what is meant should read history. I don't care what you feel it should mean.
If you can get past being angry at me, cause people who don't understand their "Rights" and want everyone to be bound by thier beliefs make me angry, try this:
What Scalia actually said, or, Cannons For EVERYONE! (*Video*) - An NC Gun Blog

For those who profess to be an "Attorney" and want to "learn me" go get stuffed, and try Scalia, he must not know law. The Constitution is not outdated, it is easy to read and understand, and what gets "experts" upset is, it was wriiten in plain english.
Oh ya, if the Constitution is out of date, useless, transcribed by "slave owners, and has not kept up with the times, please tell me why every elected offical swears an oath to it, and every service member does the same. If you belive that it is wrong why don't you lobby to have the "oath" stopped?
The founders knew that citizens needed to be armed to match the military, it is plain language, they knew when the balance of weapon power was offset in favor of the Government enough the Government would enslave the citizens. Hell they lived and fought this very concept, they were smart enough to tell you and provide for you a common defense.



Jim

I have seen this interview before, and I have watched it again to refresh my memory. The title in your link reads "cannons for everybody", but Scalia says in the interview "Amendment doesn't apply to arms that can not be hand-carried". Moreover, decision in the DC v. Heller was written by Scalia, and reads (and I copy-paste it for the 4th time this week) :

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[jake2far]

Yea and you missed the part about shoulder fired rockets, what was originally intended, as Scalia stated, and ya didn't read the text of the article. Did ya?
Try reading about privateers, what they were armed with and the fact they were used up thru the 19th century. Like I said if ya don't know try reading, cause it is not what you think.
Lets see if Scalia was correct I can use and own a LAW, Javelin, and any other man portable weapon.

Jim

 

[fd15k]

Yea and you missed the part about shoulder fired rockets, what was originally intended, as Scalia stated, and ya didn't read the text of the article. Did ya?
Try reading about privateers, what they were armed with and the fact they were used up thru the 19th century. Like I said if ya don't know try reading, cause it is not what you think.
Lets see is Scalia was correct I can use and own a LAW, Javelin, and any other man portable weapon.

Jim

And you did miss the part about "dangerous and unusual"