Assuming that reasonable Americans can read, understand and comprehend the English language, and further assuming that they believe in the rule of law to govern their lives, then it would follow that they would repose that belief system in the patent and English words set forth in the Constitution of the United States or in the constitutions of their respective states (in my case, Colorado).
It would further ensue that these founding charters constitute the fountainhead from which all statutes, ordinances and regulations, state or federal, derive authority to govern the people of the United States through a republican form of government (14th Amendment).
That said, would it be reasonable to interpret the very English word of "arms" to mean "instruments of offensive or defensive combat" in accordance with the Webster's dictionary definition rather than some vague spin of the term from some progressive judge's concept of a "living Constitution" or conjured from the recesses of an ambitious politician's mind as some would have it?
Having accepted the above definition and the rule of law as the proper authorities under which I may be governed, I then cross the Rubicon to correctly comprehend what rights I have to keep and bear arms as set forth in the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. This is a mean thing in view of the hysteria roiling in Washington, D.C., and Denver over the subject matter.
I believe that "the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state" (Colorado Constitution, Art. II, sec.2). This is even guaranteed to them by the United States under Art. IV, sec. 4, of its Constitution.
I further believe that "all persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties" (Colorado Constitution, Art. II, sec. 3).
In recognition of this natural and inalienable right of self-defense, the constitutions of the United States and the state of Colorado patently, without qualification, state: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question" (Colorado Constitution, Art. II, sec. 13); "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses ... shall not be violated" (U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment); and therefore, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment).
The U.S. Constitution contains no expressed provision, power or authority under which the United States can qualify, redefine or parse the word "arms" into anything else other than its plain and English meaning unless by further amendment to that charter. Likewise, this is true under the Colorado Constitution. We are only accountable to obey that law that is definite, understandable, comprehensible and prescribed in English, since that is another right we have - "due process" (U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment). There being no patent qualification of the term "arms" in the U.S. Constitution, then "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment).
It is of further note that the Colorado Constitution does not qualify or modify the plain meaning of the term "arms" either, which brings me to the point I wish to make that the legislatures of the United States or the state of Colorado cannot modify or change the plain meaning of the word "arms" by enacting laws to that effect in contravention of its constitutional meaning, since that would in effect be an amendment to it by legislative fiat.
Nor can President Obama change the definition by executive order, since that would also be an amendment.
To define an arm as not including an assault rifle, for instance, would be a redefinition of the term "arm." To redefine "arms" by legislative fiat to exclude weapons such as "assault rifles," automatic rifles, etc., would be to in effect illegally amend these constitutions and sandbag every American who understands English.
If these weapons are offensive or defensive weapons, then they are "arms" in plain English? If you want to clarify or redefine their meaning "arms," then to be legal about it, you must amend the state and federal Constitutions pursuant to Art. V, U.S. Constitution, and Arts. XIX and XX, Colorado Constitution.
Redefining the word "arms" by amending Webster's dictionary to accomplish that end would be intellectually dishonest, an ex post facto nullity and unconstitutional (not in accordance with the rule of law), albeit, it might comport with the left-wing agenda to subjugate the American people under their rule by executive orders or nonsensical legislative acts such as Obamacare, TARP, etc.
Law only has efficacy if it is written in the language that the people understand. If the language is ever-changing as a result of the arbitrary whim of the politician or judge, then it is not a law to which obeisance is required.
If the Second Amendment goes, so goes all of the other "inalienable rights" delineated in the Constitution for want of the means to resist the foreign invader or domestic tyrant.