An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms

The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms

“…253 Thomas Pownall: "Let therefore every man, that, appealing to his own heart, feels the least spark of virtue or freedom there, think that it is an honour which he owes himself, and a duty which he owes his country, to bear arms." 254 Williamsburgh, Massachusetts, citizens: "Voted that these words their Own be inserted which makes it read thus; that the people have a right to keep and to bear Arms for their Own and the Common defence." 255…”

“…In declaring that non-wearable weapons like "cannon[s] and heavy ordnance" are not arms, the court reasoned not along the lines of wearability, but along the lines of common use: cannons and ordnance were not arms because they were "not kept by militiamen or private citizens." 154 Other pre-Heller federal and state courts concluded similarly, excluding non-wearable weapons like cannons and missiles from the (Or. 1984) (reiterating that a weapon is an "arm" if it "is of the sort commonly used by individuals for personal defense").…”

Imagining a World Without the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“…1 The example of the right to bear arms shows that rights can be transformed as they endure over time. The origins of the right to bear arms in the United States are shrouded in controversy (Shalhope 1982;Cress 1984). Some argue that the right was originally intended to encompass an individual right to bear arms; others focus on the preamble to the right and argue that the "well-regulated militia" renders the right collective or communitarian (Cress 1984).…”

“…The origins of the right to bear arms in the United States are shrouded in controversy (Shalhope 1982;Cress 1984). Some argue that the right was originally intended to encompass an individual right to bear arms; others focus on the preamble to the right and argue that the "well-regulated militia" renders the right collective or communitarian (Cress 1984). Some argue that the right was chiefly designed to reassure the Southern states that the militia, their chief instrument of slave control, would remain intact even as the national government gained the power to raise armies (Bogus 1998).…”

Recontextualisation of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court Decisions in The New York Times

“…According to Blackstone (n.d.: para. 41, see also Winkler 2007), this right was subject to "due restrictions" not an absolute one: the right was reserved to people interested in preserving the state, that is, to "responsible citizens" (Shalhope 1982: 602-603) or "peaceable citizens" according to Samuel Adams (Cress 1984: 34, Levinson 1989.…”