[tpaine]

Sorry, but just because you believe 'Arms' are not 'Ordnance' does not make it so.

You've let your feelings get in the way. This is the way liberalism works, - liberalism says that whatever I "feel" is right or just ought to be done.

Conservatism says that we must analyze and decide what is actually in the law or the Constitution and then enforce that.

'Ordnance' need not be enumerated in the 2nd, -- as the 9th makes clear.

One of our leading FReeper's explained the concept rather well:

"-- I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans.
It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those. --"

[BruceS]

Your post does not make any sense. You say "'Ordnance' need not be enumerated in the 2nd, -- as the 9th makes clear." is obviously correct. But neither does it mean that it ordnance is a right that is covered by the 9th. Mind you, I am not certain what is covered under the 9th, but I am sure the word ordnance is not in the 2nd Amendment. Ordnance is obviously not covered by the 2nd, since the framers of the Bill of Rights very specifically said "Arms." In my opinion, the way to resolve what is covered by the 9th is covered by the 10th - powers not given to the Feds are reserved to the States or the People. States have chosen to outlaw what I have termed as ordnance. That means that the States have spoken and the People (through their elected representatives) have not over-ruled those laws.

Also, while I respect what a "leading FReeper" may say, I reserve the right to disagree with an opinion, even one that you might agree with.

Finally, if you accept that there is the capability of the Federal government to outlaw nukes, then you are admitting that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute with all weaponry. That only bolsters my assertion that while Arms are specifically included, ordnance is not specifically covered under the 2nd Amendment.