What does 'bear arms' mean to you?

[KiteEatingTree]

With the various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment phrase 'bear arms' in mind, which are most valid, practical, and/or meaningful to you? (i.e. not what you want it to mean)

 

[NateIU10]

It means RUNNNN, that bear's getting awfully close!!

Really though, to Bear means to carry.

To me at least.

 

[JustGone]

To me 'bear arms' means to carry with you on your person outside of your home

 

[The Meach]

amidoinitright?

 

[BloodEclipse]

It means to wear or carry. To keep at the ready. As much as you like wordplay you might find this thread enlightening.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/5889-the_unabridged_second_amendment.html

 

[techres]

It means private ownership and trained skills in small arms, crew served arms and heavy weapons (note historic examples of firearms, rifles, cannon, and cavalry).

So, yeah, if I could afford one, I should have every right to a BTR in the barn.

 

[Chefcook]

That's what happens when I roll up my sleeves...

No seriously It to me means, the right to be armed anytime and anywhere, the right to protect myself my family and my property from injury or theft.

 

[Ashkelon]

It means private ownership and trained skills in small arms, crew served arms and heavy weapons (note historic examples of firearms, rifles, cannon, and cavalry).

So, yeah, if I could afford one, I should have every right to a BTR in the barn.

What he said.....

 

[ihateiraq]

im all about it...up until we start talking about literal artillery. i dont know how well i could sleep at night if my neighbor had a 155 in the backyard. and why stop there? why not main battle tanks? or jet fighters? stealth bombers? nuclear arms?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Bear, to me, means carry & wield with skill.
Arms, to me, means anything less than WMD/Bio/Chem.

If our military has it, then we, too, should be within our rights to wield it responsibly. Got a lot of land to defend & a fat stack of cash? Order up an AH-64 Apache and a cache of Hellfires to guard your property. Hire a private security force to patrol your land in HUMVEEs.

When "right to bear arms" was penned, they were referring to rifled muskets, the highest level of military technology at the time. I believe that all military technology fits within the spirit of this intent, so long as it has a legitimate use in defending your person & property while minimizing collateral damages (ie, no WMD/Bio/Chem).

im all about it...up until we start talking about literal artillery. i dont know how well i could sleep at night if my neighbor had a 155 in the backyard. and why stop there? why not main battle tanks? or jet fighters? stealth bombers? nuclear arms?

If your neighbor only has a back yard to defend, then I'd say that artillery pieces wouldn't have a legitimate place in his hands. If your neighbor owns 4,000 acres in Montana, then you could make an argument for light artillery, but, can you really wield artillery with absolute responsibility?

 

[techres]

If your neighbor only has a back yard to defend, then I'd say that artillery pieces wouldn't have a legitimate place in his hands. If your neighbor owns 4,000 acres in Montana, then you could make an argument for light artillery, but, can you really wield artillery with absolute responsibility?

I agree, EXCEPT....

Rights are not tied to need. Rights are not tied to reasonability. Rights are not tied to risk. Rights are simply rights.

But back where we do agree...

If the right existed for privately owned artillery in 1776, I cannot see how we can limit it today.

And as for my neighbor...

My neighbor is enough of an idiot that he is as likely get killed playing with 50 lbs of gunpowder as a 155 shell.

(i.e. Paco and I were in agreement until he tried to be reasonable in that last paragraph, then we had a slight divergence of thought.)

 

[ihateiraq]

I agree, EXCEPT....

Rights are not tied to need. Rights are not tied to reasonability. Rights are not tied to risk. Rights are simply rights.

But back where we do agree...

If the right existed for privately owned artillery in 1776, I cannot see how we can limit it today.

And as for my neighbor...

My neighbor is enough of an idiot that he is as likely get killed playing with 50 lbs of gunpowder as a 155 shell.

(i.e. Paco and I were in agreement until he tried to be reasonable in that last paragraph, then we had a slight divergence of thought.)

surely you see the difference between a cannon and the aforementioned attack helicopter though. its not rights, its not responsibility, its capability. should someone be allowed to possess and handle something so destructive as modern howitzers? your neighbor has a bad day. loses his job. but hes still got his 155. now hes lobbing shells all over the place because he doesnt give a crap. nothing you can do except die if he picks your house as his first target. id prefer to limit what private citizens can own. i guess im left leaning when it comes to this...?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

surely you see the difference between a cannon and the aforementioned attack helicopter though. its not rights, its not responsibility, its capability. should someone be allowed to possess and handle something so destructive as modern howitzers? your neighbor has a bad day. loses his job. but hes still got his 155. now hes lobbing shells all over the place because he doesnt give a crap. nothing you can do except die if he picks your house as his first target. id prefer to limit what private citizens can own. i guess im left leaning when it comes to this...?

He could simply shoot you too. Is that too much destructive power?

I agree, EXCEPT....

Rights are not tied to need. Rights are not tied to reasonability. Rights are not tied to risk. Rights are simply rights.

[sic]

(i.e. Paco and I were in agreement until he tried to be reasonable in that last paragraph, then we had a slight divergence of thought.)

I'll concede to Techres. Darned if I don't end up agreeing with everything this man says.

I suppose you could compete down at the local artillery range, work as a team in an M1A1 Biathalon (off-road drive & shoot), etc. You could also work as private & security choose to bring the tools of your trade home with you...though I'm not sure the HOA would appreciate your taste in camouflage

I still say that WMD/Bio/Chem are out of the question. THAT is too much power in anyone's hands, even our military's.

 

[spartan933]

It means each citizen has the right to own firearms. I am a straight "meat and potatoes" guy.

 

[possum_128]

Bear means to carry, ie, when you bear a heavy burden, you carry it. Bear; to carry, tote, have afixed to one's self. Simple enough to me.

 

[ihateiraq]

He could simply shoot you too. Is that too much destructive power?

youre right. a rifle and a 155mm howitzer have the same destructive capabilities. i concede. MOABs for everyone!

 

[CarmelHP]

surely you see the difference between a cannon and the aforementioned attack helicopter though. its not rights, its not responsibility, its capability. should someone be allowed to possess and handle something so destructive as modern howitzers? your neighbor has a bad day. loses his job. but hes still got his 155. now hes lobbing shells all over the place because he doesnt give a crap. nothing you can do except die if he picks your house as his first target. id prefer to limit what private citizens can own. i guess im left leaning when it comes to this...?

It's currently legal to possess a howitzer, and all those other items, as long as taxed and registered, or, in the case of nukes, DOE licensing.

 

[Glockster]

It means to wear or carry. To keep at the ready. As much as you like wordplay you might find this thread enlightening.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/5889-the_unabridged_second_amendment.html

That's outstanding Blood! Thanks for re-posting. I've been doing some research of my own. If you read the Founders, it becomes clear their interest in a well armed citizenry. They were extemely fearful of governments having standing armies. It had been their life experience that standing armies too often become the spear of tyranny. They reasoned that if the entire population was armed, they would always outnumber any standing army by several fold thereby creating an inherent deterrent to any government's attempt to forcibly usurp the people's rights. Hence the reference to "militia" in the 2A. We see how wise and forward-thinking our founders were when we look at the great despots of the 20th Century. Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Castro (just to name a few) all begin by disarming the public. For our own politicians to be attempting the same betrays the very foundation of our liberty. It is literally the most 'un-American' concept possible.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, considering that the founders wrote it so that the average man or woman could understand it it means just what it says. Bear means to carry where you will.

 

[Octomonkey]

YouTube - Family Guy on Second Amendement