Posted 16 June 2004 - 04:42 PM
Well...both Websters and the Abridged OED define "arm" as simply "a weapon." They make no distinction between knives or guns, individual defensive weapons or WMDs. On to the meat of the question, "does the Second Amendment extend to 'assualt weapons' and machine guns ?"...
Reading both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers, it's clear the founding fathers meant that the citizenry be well-armed should a standing army or tyrannical government attempt to enslave the populace through the usurpations of individual liberties. Of course it hardly bears mention that the founding fathers had no knowledge of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and whether or not they would include these in the individual's right to bear arms is certainly debatable, albeit not without merit. The whole issue of keeping and bearing arms was intended as an individual right; a last ditch bulwark against tyranny. As such, the concept of a "well regulated militia" is that the people be armed with weapons equivalent to that of the oppressing government/army.
In Federalist 29 Alexander Hamilton stated this very idea, "if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens,
little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of
arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their
fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be
devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against
it ..."
James Madison echoes tehse sentiments in Federalist 46: "To these [an army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of
citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from
among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united
and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of
regular troops."
Clearly then, private possession of military/militarily equivalent small arms were more than acceptable to the founding fathers. Indeed, they had no problems with larger-than-personal-arms either, as evidenced by the number of artillery pieces in the hands of merchants, ships owners/masters, etc... Consider the large numbers of letters of marque granted during the War for Independence, the Quasi War, the War of 1812, the CIvil War, and even to a degree, armed merchantmen during the First and Second World Wars. If we want to go yet another step further, regarding individual possession of military small arms, we have only to look at the Miller ruling.
In US v Miller (1939) the Court held that Miller's Second Amendment right was not violated by requiring his SBR be registered. The Court's reasoning was that an SBR has no "relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" that is, an SBR was not generally considered to be a military weapon, and as such, it should be registered. The Court further stayed, "The 'arms' referred to in the Second Amendment are [...] those which ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes, and the [previous court] cases unanimously hold that weapons peculiarly adaptable to use by criminals are not within the protection of the Amendment."
Thus, it is crystal clear to me and my untrained, non-legal mind that that our founding fathers had no negative feelings towards individual possession of military/military equivalent firearms, even if not WMDs.
