Replies

If anything, it says that if any arms ARE protected, it's those that the military uses, e.g. M-16s and M-60s.

In a literal sense, I think you're exactly right. At the time, the Founding Fathers clearly desired that the citizens had some kind of military parity with the government. The term 'bear arms' has a deeply military connontation, not a hunting one.

Now, does that mean that Thomas Jefferson wanted individual citizens to own cruise missiles? Tanks? Grenade launchers? It's hard to say, exactly, since they weren't around at the time. Certainly private citizens owned ships and cannon, which were clearly military grade of the time. A letter of marque serves no purpose if there aren't heavily armed citizens to employ. One could infer that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have pretty much anything that the government could.

At least in the late 18th century. How about the early 21st? A lot of the problems herin is that they never imagined we'd be operating on the same Constitution (amended or not) over 200 years later. It seems to me that under what appeared to be their intent, they'd be more open for the banning of handguns (as they are more useful in crime than in warfare) than for any restrictions on rifles, machine guns, or heavier items. Just my take, anyway.

Now, does that mean that Thomas Jefferson wanted individual citizens to own cruise missiles? Tanks? Grenade launchers? It's hard to say, exactly, since they weren't around at the time. Certainly private citizens owned ships and cannon, which were clearly military grade of the time. A letter of marque serves no purpose if there aren't heavily armed citizens to employ. One could infer that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have pretty much anything that the government could.

There was a distinctino between arms (guns, swords), and ordinance (cannons).

'Arms' seems to entail (as a loose definition) anything that can be carried in 2 arms.

It seems to me that under what appeared to be their intent, they'd be more open for the banning of handguns (as they are more useful in crime than in warfare)

So why are troops issued pistols?

they'd be more open for the banning of handguns (as they are more useful in crime than in warfare) than for any restrictions on rifles, machine guns, or heavier items. Just my take, anyway.

The same thing that makes them useful to criminals makes them useful for little old ladies protecting themselves against criminals as well: They are small, easy to operate, and powerful enough to do the job. Self-defense is important as well, and I think the framers understood that.

Now, does that mean that Thomas Jefferson wanted individual citizens to own cruise missiles? Tanks? Grenade launchers? It's hard to say, exactly, since they weren't around at the time. Certainly private citizens owned ships and cannon, which were clearly military grade of the time. A letter of marque serves no purpose if there aren't heavily armed citizens to employ. One could infer that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have pretty much anything that the government could.

That was talked about actually in the decision around page 50 to 54 (I think it was without looking it up again) when it was talking about the equipment required for milita.

I can't remember if they were citing previous rulings or making their own comments.

The basic impression I got was that small arms (rifles, pistols etc) that could be used by an individual were covered, but larger arms were not as those were to be provided by the actual military, BUT for militia use.