If I really have the right to bear arms--

[BarackTheVote]

Why can't I carry a sword or a halberd? Are these not armaments? Where is the lobbying group for swords and other cutlery? Why can someone carry a rapid fire death machine into a department store, and I can't carry a dueling sword into these same establishments--to defend myself, of course? Heck, I can't even carry a butterfly knife or a switchblade! How's that make any sense, exactly?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Because what's actually being defended is the right to sell arms. nt

[cantbeserious]

4. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[TBF]

18. 'Murica!!! nt

[sharp_stick]

2. I've always wanted a battle axe n/t

[valerief]

34. Hey, I AM a battle axe!

[cantbeserious]

3. The Point Is Not Lost Here - The Gun Nuts Are Certifiably Crazy - Only Social Custom And Law Keeps

Them On the streets.

[Major Nikon]

5. The entire phrase is outdated. This is what it really means today...

[mwrguy]

6. You can carry a switchblade or a sword lots of places

[atreides1]

7. Legally?

Can you really? Can you carry a switchblade or sword legally?

[former9thward]

14. You can carry both legally in AZ.

I don't know about anywhere else.

[dumbcat]

16. Switchblades now legal to carry in Texas.

Swords are still restricted in public.

[Shandris]

20. Back in the 90's, probably...94 or 95 I'd say, I saw a long-haired man in a trenchcoat...

...walking down our local mall with a sword on his back. It was in a scabbard, but it was unmistakably a sword. He looked odd (trenchcoat coupled with a black, silver-ring-trimmed-with-tassle stetson and black fringe suede boots; later, it would become 'Columbine wear' but that was still years away), but not overly intimidating or anything.

Still, it was the only time I can recall seeing someone carrying something like that. Now, I know people used to carry those 12" Rambo knives (that's what I call them, I don't know...its the one people bought that had all the stuff in the handle? Yeah. That.) and eventually there was an ordinance against them specifically, but I don't think it covered swords. It may have, though.

[GGJohn]

22. Here in AZ it's legal.

I've yet to see someone carrying a sword or a switchblade in Flagstaff, but it is legal.

[aikoaiko]

41. Automatic knives are legal in GA and can be carried with a GA Weapons Permit

Spyderco makes a nice knife.

[ileus]

8. Why would you, a nice single stack pistol is smaller and pretty darned effective.

That's one of the reasons the sword and halberd aren't that popular on the conceal carry market.

[BarackTheVote]

19. Maybe I grew up idolizing knights

instead of cowboys. Maybe I wanted to be Luke Skywalker, instead of Han Solo. My reasons are my own. I want a sword, damnit!

[kentauros]

26. And some coconuts!

[BarackTheVote]

36. It's right there on the application form for

prospective Squires: must provide own coconuts!

[pansypoo53219]

9. i did have a chance to buy a small mace. that would be fun in a purse.

[Waldorf]

10. There is actually a knife rights group. There are links in the Motherjones article to their website.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/knife-rights-second-amendment

[madinmaryland]

11. I want to carry my longbow. nt

[hunter]

12. I build anti-matter bombs as a hobby.

Fortunately nobody believes me and I'm a gentle soul and pacifist who has never found any cause to use them for anything more than my own entertainment.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

13. Because swords are dangerous

[PoliticAverse]

28. Indeed they are...

[Shandris]

15. They weren't still considered 'arms' at the time.

Ironically, cannons were (because cannoneers), but I haven't seen too many people calling to own a cannon (although I personally would love to own a cannon as a replica because HOLY HELL WHAT A FLOWERPOT!).

Swords, dirks, clubs....that kind of thing wasn't under the definition of 'Arms' at the time (although bayonets were). Or so it said in some dictionary or another from that day. *shrug*

I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to carry personal defense if they so desire. There's more places in this nation than ginormous cities.

[PoliticAverse]

30. In the area of New York I live in there are lots of old cannons all over...

some displayed on town property, others on people's front lawns.

[Shandris]

33. No kidding?! Woah, I'll bet that takes some getting used to!

I passed through this one city that still had a big tank at some park or another once, and I've been to Baltimore where there's that big battleship over by the Hard Rock Cafe (or used to be, at least). But cannons? Only at Gettysburg pics have I seen real cannons just 'laying around', so to speak.

That's neat, thanks!

[PoliticAverse]

37. They're pretty small, about 18"-2' in length, and...

don't have any type of supporting structure - they're not mounted on wooden wheels
or anything (perhaps they were intended to be hand carried or any supporting structure
has rotten away over the years). Some of them I think are actually old "mortars".
As they are rather pitch black it's often pretty hard to make out what they are from a distance.

[Mister Ed]

17. And why just firearms? Why not field artillery? Guided missles? Chemical weapons?

Doesn't an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment guarantee you the right to those as well?

Or, at least, an absolutist interpretation of the second half of the Second Amendment - which is the only part of it that some people are willing to acknowledge.

[branford]

29. First, there's a difference between arms and ordnance.

Moreover, you can indeed own field artillery, missiles, tanks, jet fighters, etc. in the USA.

There are VERY expensive, and the BATFE requires a LOT of paperwork, but they are indeed legal to own, and some few do.

[Mister Ed]

43. Webster disagrees.

Arms
n. pl. 1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/arms

I blame myself for this detour into quibbling over semantics, though, because my post was somewhat oblique. To bluntly and plainly pose the two questions I meant to suggest in that post:

1) Does the Second Amendment guarantee every individual an absolute and unlimited right to stockpile arms of every description?

2) Is the first half of the Second Amendment a meaningful part of the amendment, or was is it simply put there to be dismissed and disregarded?

[hack89]

44. No and not really. Nt

[Snobblevitch]

45. To answer your questions,

there are some limits to what arms can be held by civilians. However, if a person has the resources, there is not a law that would bar them from owning several hundred ir several thousand guns. As long as they are not engaging in gun trafficking, it is legal to own as many guns as such a person would want.

The first part of the 2A gives a reason, but is not a limiting clause. the BoR limits the government, not the people.

[branford]

46. No right is "absolute or unlimited."

We have an entire body of detailed and complicated law to determine the nature and type of restrictions permitted on fundamental rights. SCOTUS, in Heller and McDonald, even reviewed some of the permissible restrictions on firearm ownership, including the current no felons and dangerously mental ill rules. I can confidently state that you have no need to worry that the Second Amendment will allow your neighbor to arm himself with a hydrogen bomb or weaponized anthrax.

SCOTUS also explicitly discussed you second inquiry, and I encourage you to read the decisions.

Simply the militia clause can be "meaningful," in the sense of being explanatory, without needing to be dismissed or disregarded.

However, the related claim that the Second Amendment only guaranteed a "collective right" protecting the militia is ludicrous within the context and history of the Bill of Rights (it would be the only collective right in a set of limitations on government against the People and States). The militia limitation claims are little more than desperate attempts to nullify a part of the Constitution that many find inconvenient and where there's absolutely no support for repeal.

[Mister Ed]

48. So jurists have decided that the militia clause is an explanation,

but ultimately not an explanation that they should rely on to guide and inform their decisions. Sounds very much to me as though they have dismissed and disregarded that explanation, then.

At any rate, you've answered both my questions.

[snooper2]

21. I don't know why people don't want to leave bears alone

[GGJohn]

25. I like this one better.

[KamaAina]

23. An antique shop in the French Quarter has a sign

reading "Buy swords. There's no waiting period."

[KamaAina]

24. I live right underneath an alternate flight path.

I am sick and tired of being awakened by planes on weekend mornings. Why can't I have a surface-to-air missile?

[Calista241]

42. Yeah, that's a joke I wouldn't be posting on a public forum.

Sarcasm tag not withstanding.

[packman]

27. Because there is no NCA

(N)ational (C)utlery (A)ssociation - at least, I don't think so.

[ibegurpard]

31. Good question

Is it illegal to carry a sword?

[PoliticAverse]

38. I used to attend mass at a catholic church in New York City, occasionally the Knights of Columbus...

would be participating in the mass I attended and they carried and displayed swords.

Here's a picture I found on the Internet that illustrates this...

[bunnies]

32. You can carry any knife you want in NH. Including a broad sword.

switchblades, stilettos, dirks, butterflies. Anything you want.

[valerief]

35. I want to carry a clock in a suitcase! nt

[PoliticAverse]

39. Stick to pencil cases, they'll eventually let you go. n/t

[olddots]

40. its harder to purchase a bow & arrow than a gun in L.A.

I'm not making this up .I did buy a 100 dollar cross bow at Big 5 with no guestions asked .We are really in trouble with this stuff .

[Snobblevitch]

47. When you say harder,

do you mean a bow and arrow grouping is more difficult to find in a store? I don't believe there is a background check for arrowed weapons. I would think a crossbow would be more difficult to purchase than a compound bow.

[LostOne4Ever]

49. Katanas