For context, the original question:
As Ribs noted, at the time the amendment was written civilians could own the same weapons as soldiers, which all covered under the umbrella of "arms". However, even if the second amendment was supposed to be interpreted liberally and defend not merely firearms but all sorts of arms, regulations would still be needed to define what actually counts as "arms", as laws don't enforce themselves, they must be enforced and interpreted by the legal system. For an amusing example, the very weapons that were in use when the amendment was written are ironically not protected by it, as pre-1899 guns are not legally considered firearms and are not covered by federal firearm regulations (this is why you might hear felons talking about buying antique designs for self defense, the federal prohibition on felons owning firearms doesn't apply to older designs).
In a more maximal context, the 2nd amendment was written in the context of "arms" being tactical, battlefield weapons. New designs and new categories of weapons would need at the very least a court ruling to say they fit the rules. If cannons and howitzers fit the bill, the logically tanks and artillery do, but what about a B 29 bomber, intended to rain explosives on cities miles behind the front, is that still arms? Or are the bombs arms while the plane is just the way to deliver them, and the the plane isn't protected? Or a IRBM or SRBM, are those "arms"?
On the nuts and bolts level, federal regulation and limits on constitutional rights exists because it's universally agreed upon that rights are not unlimited. As the old saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. For free speech, libel laws or false advertising is an example, where your right to speech ends once your words start to cause real harm (roughly speaking. It's very complicated). A similar concept applies to gun ownership, though with more leeway because of the inherent dangers guns pose + courts failing to properly defend the 2nd amendment for decades.
Well, since the conversation has broadened beyond "body armor", I'll ask a question I've had for a while. That is, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees private citizens the right to keep and bear arms as a failsafe against a tyrannical government, then... why should a government that may one day turn tyrannical have the power to regulate weapons, at all?
I'm not even talking about Supreme Court decisions, I'm talking about how if you fear the US government will eventually turn on its citizens, then it doesn’t make sense to give that same government the ability to decide what weapons you can or can’t have. Because then, tyrannical elements within the US government will use and abuse their power to deprive you of what you need to defend yourself, so that by the time they’re ready to pounce, it’s already too late—and that misses the whole point behind why the 2nd Amendment is there to start with. In which case, I’m honestly inclined to think the only interpretation true to the whole point of having it is, indeed, an absolutist one, whatever ramifications that may have.
As Ribs noted, at the time the amendment was written civilians could own the same weapons as soldiers, which all covered under the umbrella of "arms". However, even if the second amendment was supposed to be interpreted liberally and defend not merely firearms but all sorts of arms, regulations would still be needed to define what actually counts as "arms", as laws don't enforce themselves, they must be enforced and interpreted by the legal system. For an amusing example, the very weapons that were in use when the amendment was written are ironically not protected by it, as pre-1899 guns are not legally considered firearms and are not covered by federal firearm regulations (this is why you might hear felons talking about buying antique designs for self defense, the federal prohibition on felons owning firearms doesn't apply to older designs).
In a more maximal context, the 2nd amendment was written in the context of "arms" being tactical, battlefield weapons. New designs and new categories of weapons would need at the very least a court ruling to say they fit the rules. If cannons and howitzers fit the bill, the logically tanks and artillery do, but what about a B 29 bomber, intended to rain explosives on cities miles behind the front, is that still arms? Or are the bombs arms while the plane is just the way to deliver them, and the the plane isn't protected? Or a IRBM or SRBM, are those "arms"?
On the nuts and bolts level, federal regulation and limits on constitutional rights exists because it's universally agreed upon that rights are not unlimited. As the old saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose. For free speech, libel laws or false advertising is an example, where your right to speech ends once your words start to cause real harm (roughly speaking. It's very complicated). A similar concept applies to gun ownership, though with more leeway because of the inherent dangers guns pose + courts failing to properly defend the 2nd amendment for decades.
Last edited: