- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
both of you didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying theoretically people of good intentions can argue whether certain military weapons are "ORDNANCE" or ARTILLERY rather than arms even though modern weapons allow an individual to deploy a device that has the equivalent power of a crew served artillery piece circa 1790 or 1917 HOWEVER, there is absolutely no legitimate argument that common CIVILIAN police weapons come anywhere close to whatever honest line one wants to draw concerning what military weapons are protected and what are not
Arms are VERY clearly denoted back then as ANY sort of weapony, arms being short for the term Armements or implements of warfare. Cannons and fully armed and crewed ships of war were commonly owned by private individuals. Those were some of the most destructive implements known back then short of a wharehouse full of blackpowder which private individuals could also own. The 2nd makes NO distinction between any arms of any kind. The theory you and others use debases the amendment, making it functionaly toothless in increments. Thereby making the arguement with the gun grabbers moot as they will whitle away at what is and isnt allowed till eventually the amendment is pointless. The amendments were and are to any common man who can read quite clear. There is no wiggle room. If arms are to be limited it best be by amendment.
On a side note why anyone would support the gutless ******s of the NRA is beyond me because they are the twits that helped start this mess in the first place by caving in back in 34. They have been caving ever since. I will honestly be surprised if they actually hold the line here, let alone push back. I seriously doubt those twits will anything of the sort.