A question about the Second Amendment

[Perd Hapley]

It's getting awfully popular for our side to claim that the Second Amendment applies only to weapons that can be borne. So, no one has a right to just keep weapons, we have to be able to bear them. Which I guess might necessitate a PT test for firearms ownership. Prove that you can hump that .50- cal for a few miles, and then we'll OK the transaction.

 So if the First Amendment read that we have a right to write and publish, would that mean that only self-published works are protected?

[Tallpine]

I never made that claim.  I do think a three day waiting period for purchase of nuclear weapons would be "reasonable"   


Ironic, the "bear" part of the 2A is not currently upheld.  You can't bear them but you can only keep what you can bear 

Anyway, perhaps it was just a spelling error - maybe it means you can only open carry "bare arms"   

[lee n. field]

Can't have people shooting off nukes in the heat of the moment.

Oh, wait.

[brimic]

Its a lack of knowledge of and skill for using the Engrish language.

'Bear' can mean to 'carry' but it also means 'to put to use.'


 Example:
Colonists brought cannon, mortars, howitzers, and naval ships to bear during the Revolutionary War.

[Hawkmoon]

It's getting awfully popular for our side to claim that the Second Amendment applies only to weapons that can be borne. So, no one has a right to just keep weapons, we have to be able to bear them. Which I guess might necessitate a PT test for firearms ownership. Prove that you can hump that .50- cal for a few miles, and then we'll OK the transaction.

 So if the First Amendment read that we have a right to write and publish, would that mean that only self-published works are protected?

OUR side makes this claim? Who? Where? When?

Post-Heller and post-McDonald, the other side is now engaging in damage control by trying to limit what the 2A applies to, and the SCOTUS seems to be buying into the "those weapons that are in general use and can be easily carried" argument.

The argument hinges on the language of the 2A -- it protects a right to keep "and bear" arms. "Bear" means -- basically -- carry or wear on your person. So I guess I have to acknowledge (reluctantly) that the 2A may not protect my right to own crew-served weapons or F-16s or tanks. But the 2A is not (by its own language) limited to those "bearable" arms in common use. The unfortunate Miller case eliminated short-barreled shotguns on the grounds (incorrect, BTW) that they had no military application -- but that case used the militia preamble to claim a relationship to militia service for the 2A. Heller and McDonald have thoroughly skewered that and separated us from militia duty as a prerequisite for 2A rights.

In fact, the two recent decisions have now swung the pendulum too far the other way. The SCOTUS now officially recognizes personal self-defense as the core right protected by the 2A. My concern there is that they may be intentionally aiming to marginalize the militia context in order to marginalize militias.

Long answer to a short question. What was the question again? Yeah, I am reluctantly coming around to acknowledging that the 2A only applies to weapons that can be carried. But I don't think it's "our side" that's claiming that.

[Balog]

I can carry an M2 or MK19.

[brimic]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear
2bear
 verb \ˈber\
bore   borne also born   bear·ing


Definition of BEAR

transitive verb


1

a : to move while holding up and supporting (something) 

b : to be equipped or furnished with (something) 

c : behave, conduct <bearing himself well> 

d : to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother> 

e : to give as testimony <bear false witness> 

f : to have as an identification <bore the name of John> 

g : to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> 

h : disseminate 

i : lead, escort 

j : render, give

2

a : to give birth to 

b : to produce as yield 

c  (1) : to permit growth of  (2) : contain <oil-bearing shale>

3

a : to support the weight of : sustain 

b : to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> 

c : to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching> 

d : to hold above, on top, or aloft 

e : to admit of : allow 

f : assume, accept

4

: thrust, press

intransitive verb


1

: to produce fruit : yield


2

a : to force one's way 

b : to extend in a direction indicated or implied 

c : to be situated : lie 

d : to become directed 

e : to go or incline in an indicated direction

3

: to support a weight or strain —often used with up


4

a : to exert influence or force 

b : apply, pertain —often used with on or upon <facts bearing on the question>
— bear a hand


: to join in and help out

— bear arms


1

: to carry or possess arms


2

: to serve as a soldier

— bear fruit


: to come to satisfying fruition, production, or development : to produce a desired result or reward

— bear in mind


: to think of (something) especially as a warning : remember

— bear with


: to be indulgent, patient, or forbearing with (someone)


 See bear defined for English-language learners »


Examples of BEAR

a symphony that can bear comparison with Beethoven's best
The company agreed to bear the costs.
The criminals must bear full responsibility for the deaths of these innocent people.
Who will bear the blame for this tragedy?
A stone slab bearing 3,000-year-old writing previously unknown to scholars has been found in the Mexican state of Veracruz, and archaeologists say it is an example of the oldest script ever discovered in the Western Hemisphere. —John Noble Wilford,New York Times, 15 Sept. 2006

• more

Origin of BEAR

Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
First Known Use: before 12th century


Related to BEAR

Synonymsbirth [chiefly dialect], deliver, drop, have, mother, produce, give birth to, live with, lump (it), stand for, tough (it) outAntonymsdisavow, disclaim, disown, repudiate


Related Wordslabor; breed, multiply, propagate, reproduce, spawn; beget, father, generate, get, sire; calve, kid, kindle, kitten, litter, pup, whelpNear Antonymsabort, lose, miscarry
more


Synonym Discussion of BEAR

bear, suffer, endure, abide, tolerate, stand mean to put up with something trying or painful. bear usually implies the power to sustain without flinching or breaking <forced to bear a tragic loss>. suffer often suggests acceptance or passivity rather than courage or patience in bearing <suffering many insults>. endure implies continuing firm or resolute through trials and difficulties <endured years of rejection>. abide suggests acceptance without resistance or protest <cannot abide their rudeness>. tolerate suggests overcoming or successfully controlling an impulse to resist, avoid, or resent something injurious or distasteful <refused to tolerate such treatment>. stand emphasizes even more strongly the ability to bear without discomposure or flinching <unable to stand teasing>.


---------------------------------------------------------

The word 'bear' is a very broad term. In no way, shape, or form is it limited to what a person can pick up or carry.

If you let the left control the language, they win the war. If one makes the argument that 'COTUS  and the BOR does not allow me to bear a 20mm recoilless rifle because I can't carry it 5 miles' I laugh in their face because I'm too polite to spit in it.

[Perd Hapley]

Hawk moon,

I'll try and find some examples later, but this usually happens when the Left says something like, "Oh, well, if the 2A says you can have an assault rifle, then why not a nuke?!" And our side counters that "keep and bear" rules out anything beyond small arms. So it's only a right to keep and bear, supposedly, not two separate rights to keep and to bear. I guess by that logic, the 2A doesn't protect a right to carry a borrowed weapon.

[brimic]

Hawk moon,

I'll try and find some examples later, but this usually happens when the Left says something like, "Oh, well, if the 2A says you can have an assault rifle, then why not a nuke?!" And our side counters that "keep and bear" rules out anything beyond small arms. So it's only a right to keep and bear, supposedly, not two separate rights to keep and to bear. I guess by that logic, the 2A doesn't protect a right to carry a borrowed weapon.

Most of those on 'out side' are also brainwashed idiots. Why do you think that democrats posing with a $5000 shotgun is such an effective scheme during elections?

[Hugh Damright]

'Bear' can mean to 'carry' but it also means 'to put to use.'

Thanks, I didn't want to bring it up, because I think we're stuck with this construction where "bear" means a right to carry, but I think the intent is a right to keep and use arms.

[MechAg94]

Playing word games, I can see someone saying that a Nuke is an explosive and therefore regulated under separate rules from firearms. In other words, you can get your nuclear cannon or rocket, but you have to get other permissions to get the nuclear warhead.

I recall thinking that sort of distinction might work.  I would love to get grenade launchers and RPG's.  One could easily argue that practice rounds are no more dangerous than bullets.  Work on the explosives later.


All that said, I agree that for the most part, people overstate the actual public danger from this stuff.  Probably have more trouble with people killing themselves playing with stuff than people using them to attack others.

[BlueStarLizzard]

OUR side makes this claim? Who? Where? When?

Post-Heller and post-McDonald, the other side is now engaging in damage control by trying to limit what the 2A applies to, and the SCOTUS seems to be buying into the "those weapons that are in general use and can be easily carried" argument.

The argument hinges on the language of the 2A -- it protects a right to keep "and bear" arms. "Bear" means -- basically -- carry or wear on your person. So I guess I have to acknowledge (reluctantly) that the 2A may not protect my right to own crew-served weapons or F-16s or tanks. But the 2A is not (by its own language) limited to those "bearable" arms in common use. The unfortunate Miller case eliminated short-barreled shotguns on the grounds (incorrect, BTW) that they had no military application -- but that case used the militia preamble to claim a relationship to militia service for the 2A. Heller and McDonald have thoroughly skewered that and separated us from militia duty ass a prerequisite for 2A rights.

In fact, the two recent decisions have now swung the pendulum too far the other way. The SCOTUS now officially recognizes personal self-defense as the core right protected by the 2A. My concern there is that they may be intentionally aiming to marginalize the militia context in order to marginalize militias.

Long answer to a short question. What was the question again? Yeah, I am reluctantly coming around to acknowledging that the 2A only applies to weapons that can be carried. But I don't think it's "our side" that's claiming that.

Interpretation of the language based on what? Modern usage? Historical usage?
How about a big part of the reason the thing was written in the first place?

Those colonist (the richer ones) didn't just provide muskets and powder. They bought and had returned to them the artilery of the day, and they damn sure wanted to keep it.

I'm pretty sure the intention and historical usage trump whatever this modern definition is, and the founding fathers intended that if you can afford it, you can have it, no matter how big the boom.

[Tallpine]

Does the right to free speech apply to the internet or just hand pressed leaflets 

[Matthew Carberry]

Cost, health and safety, and zoning laws will take care of nuke ownership as anything but a theoretical exercise.

You have to find one for sale, of which there aren't any legally in a legally importable status, or build your own (which would not be automatically kosher under the 2nd, at least not without the same regs as current manufacturers). 

Have fun getting the refined fissionable materials in sufficient quantities, much less the required explosives, with that as your stated purpose while filling out all the existing paperwork (this is being done aboveboard right?).  You have to be able to store the device without killing yourself or others with radiation, that would meet strict scrutiny easily.  You have to maintain it or it will be useless. You have to have a legal place to use it that will not impact your neighbors with the detonation or fallout and a justification for doing so, etc, etc.

So Oprah or Bill Gates might be able to pull it off legally, but why would they -want- to?

Similarly for aircraft carriers, or all but the cheapest military hardware.  Docking/landing/storage/maintenance/fuel/personnel costs are a nightmare.  There's a reason most -countries- don't have anything significantly more powerful than a WWII destroyer in their arsenals, to even suggest that -individuals- exerting a theoretically expanded 2A would be a meaningful issue beyond current NFA limits is idiotic on its face.

Hell, most tanks aren't even street legal: so have fun loading one up on a heavy hauler while following all DOT transpo regulations to get it to somewhere where firing the main armament in a code-compliant fashion is legal.  Enjoy paying for the fuel, maintenance and, even if the NFA went away, the ammo.  Even if the fully equipped Abrahms were offered for civilian sale tomorrow it'd still be more expensive than a Supercar and even less street legal and thus there'd be a miniscule market for ammo so the round cost would still be obscene.

The anti's aren't serious when they try to snark using those examples, so rather than parsing "bear" or talking about man-portable weapons, just ask them why they are using such a puerile example.  If they persist, ask them how, if merely firing a gun in public has admittedly 2A permissable safety restrictions on it, somehow every other regulation regarding the practical aspects of radioactive or explosive purchase, importation, storage, transport, maintenance and use will somehow become null and void.

Don't argue an idiotic question, just make them look asinine for even going there.  Particularly if there are any undecided onlookers.

[Perd Hapley]

Does the right to free speech apply to the internet or just hand pressed leaflets 

Don't worry. Our government likes free speech on the internet so much, they read it all, and probably store it for posterity!

[Tallpine]

Don't worry. Our government likes free speech on the internet so much, they read it all, and probably store it for posterity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[BlueStarLizzard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Don't get grumpy at him.

Everyone! Just smile and wave at the NSA guy!

:)

*Waves* Hi, NSA guy!

[Tallpine]

Don't get grumpy at him.

Everyone! Just smile and wave at the NSA guy!

:)

*Waves* Hi, NSA guy!

Howdy, NSA.  I just bought a new, cooler weapon 

[Hawkmoon]

I'll try and find some examples later, but this usually happens when the Left says something like, "Oh, well, if the 2A says you can have an assault rifle, then why not a nuke?!" And our side counters that "keep and bear" rules out anything beyond small arms. So it's only a right to keep and bear, supposedly, not two separate rights to keep and to bear. I guess by that logic, the 2A doesn't protect a right to carry a borrowed weapon.

I can't recall ever seeing one of "our side" countering that the 2A pnly applies to small arms. I know I pretty consistently argue that the 2A should allow me to have my own F-16, and generally the only disagreement is from people who know I can't afford to buy one.

That said, I do agree that it is ONE right. That's why the antis are wrong when they try to claim that the 2A, per Heller and McDonald, only protects a right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, but doesn't protect a right to "bear" arms in public. That's nonsense. The language is what the language is, and it's very clear:

"... THE right [not "rights," plural] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Tallpine]

I can't recall ever seeing one of "our side" countering that the 2A pnly applies to small arms. I know I pretty consistently argue that the 2A should allow me to have my own F-16, and generally the only disagreement is from people who know I can't afford to buy one.

That said, I do agree that it is ONE right. That's why the antis are wrong when they try to claim that the 2A, per Heller and McDonald, only protects a right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense, but doesn't protect a right to "bear" arms in public. That's nonsense. The language is what the language is, and it's very clear:

"... THE right [not "rights," plural] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But subject to reasonable restrictions, just like you have to have training and apply for a permit to vote or exercise free speech.

[Levant]

It's getting awfully popular for our side to claim that the Second Amendment applies only to weapons that can be borne.

Your side, maybe.  My side would recognize that "keep and bear arms" means to not just to keep arms but to also bear them - you cannot bear that which you don't keep but you can keep what you don't bear.  My side also recognizes that "arms" does not mean just guns.  It means knives, bows, slingshots, swords, cannons, machine guns and any other arm that could be necessary to defend life, limb, home, or liberty.

[Sergeant Bob]

But subject to reasonable restrictions, just like you have to have training and apply for a permit to vote or exercise free speech.

This right here. You don't hear the antis arguing that speech should be subject to "reasonable" restrictions.

[White Horseradish]

Here is an argument for ya:

Congress is constitutionally granted the power to issue letters of marque. A letter of marque is basically a sort of a naval hunting license authorizing a private vessel to engage enemy ships on the high seas. For a private vessel to do this it must be armed. The fact that this power exists shows that the writers of the Constitution clearly expected armed warships to be in private ownership. A warship was the most powerful weapon available, pretty much a WMD of it's day, particularly against a coastal city.

Incidentally, I think exercising this particular power would be a handy (and easy on the budget) solution to the pirate problem.

[MillCreek]

In regards to an Abrams, I wonder what one main tank gun round would cost?  Or for that matter 10 rounds through a Mark 19 grenade launcher?

[Fly320s]

In regards to an Abrams, I wonder what one main tank gun round would cost?  Or for that matter 10 rounds through a Mark 19 grenade launcher?

At government rates, I'd guess $5,000 and $500 each, respectively.