SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3986)8/11/2000 6:45:38 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13060
 
I would say arms refers to hand carried small firearms (and I guess older style weapons as well such as swords, spears and bows). Yes that would include fully automatic weapons. That definition would not include nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. You do raise a valid point that the exact meaning of the amendment does depend on the definition of arms.

The right to "keep and bear" arms does not in my opinion mean that no limit can be placed on where you can take them.
The owner of a property (includeing airplanes and airports) would have a right to keep weapons off their property.

Tim



To: The Philosopher who wrote (3986)8/11/2000 8:54:02 PM
From: dave rose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13060
 
<<That people should be able to carry guns openly on planes. (Our current restrictions are definitely
an infringement on the right to bear arms.)>>>

You do not have a constitutional right to ride in my airplane. If you want to carry a gun in a plane you must buy your own plane and you can do anything you want.
daverose


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News