A Right of the People - The meaning of the Emerson decision.

I think if you look at its etymology, specifically the 18th-century context-specific use of the word "arms", you will find a definition that is distinct from artillery. Care should always be taken in applying modern definitions to words in different historical eras.

I'm not sure what your point is but I am sure of mine. When anti-2nd Amendment activists describe the 2nd A. as outdated by the absurdity that it never intended for people to possess a nuclear weapon, I point out that "arms" and "nuclear weaponry" are distinct.

ar·til·ler·y n. pl. ar·til·ler·ies
1. Large-caliber weapons, such as cannon, howitzers, and missile launchers, that are operated by crews.
2. The branch of an army that specializes in the use of such weapons.
3. Weapons, such as catapults, arbalests, and other early devices, used for discharging missiles.

If you want to debate whether the people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, that is another matter.

If you are insinuating that I have made statements without first reading, I assure you that not only have I read it, I could have written it, only much better with clarity at a level that ordinary people could grasp and internalize.

The Bill of Rights was never written for a caste of lawyers, but as a simple enumeration for all to understand. That it has been so intensely debated in its history is not a reflection on any ambiguity, rather a reflection on the corruption of those seeking power over others in an attempt to twist and deceive meanings and intents.

"TOTAL BS. Would you be so kind as to show us where, in the real Constitution, there is such an exclusion?"

Okay, Let's say I start a religion and call it "save the children." My right to exercise that religion cannot be infringed by the Federal government. My State and local governments cannot stop me either due to the 14th Amendment and my State Constitution.

But then let's say that my followers and I decide that the only way we can "save the children" is to send them to heaven (i.e. kill them). My First Amendment right just hit a brick wall. I can't kill children in the name of my religion because it infringes upon those children's right to life and liberty.

So, even though I have a strong, almost unlimited right to practice my religion, it does have boundaries; namely when it impacts the rights of others. Sometimes rights oppose each other; therefore, there will always be boundaries. None of our rights can be absolutely limitless.

The Second Amendment is the same, if there is a conflict with other citizens' rights the Second Amendment is not always going to win. Nukes are over that line between my individual rights and those of my fellow citizens.

"You just don't like it, you fear it, and so you maintain a lie about such an arm being excluded."

On the contrary, I believe I have outlined a solid and Constitutional argument. You don't have to agree, but I'm certainly not lying.

"The 2nd amendment is unambiguous, and your fears don't alter that."

Fear has nothing to do with it. I agree with you that the Second Amendment is unambiguous! I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and of the entire Bill of Rights. The limit of one right is found when it crashes with other rights. Such is the case with nukes.

If you don't want me to have a nuke, then change the Constitution.

It's not necessary, limits have already been established. The Federal Government and your State and Local governments are not going to let you have a nuke. You could always build one in secret, but if the word ever got out the Second Amendment is not going to protect you.

You still don't have to agree and I can respect that. We're arguing a moot point anyway. We've already lost the 2A rights that you are arguing for AND the ones I am arguing for. We'd be better off working together to get these rights back.

Peace,
JWinNC

Also notable in prior decisions is that, early in USA legal history, concealment was considered bad -

Only if you were a slave, or you were black and it was the Reconstruction era, or if you one of those "swarthy foreigners" in New York in the early twentieth century.

It was considered a sin to *not* defend yourself as you were not sufficiently appreciative of God's gift of life.

Furthermore, gentlemen were EXPECTED to be ready and able to come to the aid of women, children and the elderly.

In my state, concealed weapons laws weren't passed until Reconstruction.

the final straw having been the valentine's day massacre in Chicago.

This occurred in 1929. And BTW, the body count was seven.

The public was furious and was demanding that something be done. Well, something was done.

Don't think so. 1934 is five years after 1929.

A better hypothesis is that since Prohibition ended in 1932, the 'gang wars' of the Twenties were over.

There were a whole lot of revenooers and not very many moonshiners and bootleggers to chase.

So NFA '34 was probably 'mission creep' legislation to justify their continued employment.

It worked (as far as I know, automatic weapons soon ceased being used in crime).

They already had. See comment above.

The only documented example of a registered NFA weapon being used in a crime was by an (ex-?)police officer.

Read about it, but don't have the reference handy.

Yet, law abiding citizens could (theoretically, at first, since $200 was an awful lot of money back then) keep and bear such arms.

And, corporations, concerned about unruly strikers could aford them, too (go, management!) Correct on these points. They DID have an amnesty period where people could register without paying the tax.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.