Replies

You claimed:

In the 18th Century, there were different types of weapons. "Arms" referred to the personal weapons that the typical militia member could be expected to possess, maintain and use. We now refer to this as small arms (among other things). The other term for weapons was "ordnance" (not ordinance, which is a local law). This referred to items that were typically provided by the government - cannons, explosives, ships, etc.

Yep, this is a common argument made by those who support prohibitions on ordnance like cannons and machine guns, etc. -- Al of which are 'arms', as per the 2nd.

An individual could own ordnance, but it was not expected to be that way, so it was not considered a right and was not put in the 2nd Amendment.

Pure supposition.. -- Nothing in the Constitution itself or in the documentary record leading to it's ratification supports that theory.

This means that the Federal government is free to regulate ordnance, IMO. In the modern army, ordnance would include the M-1 Abrams Tank.

The ownership of tanks [of any sort] is not regulated/outlawed. Only the arms mounted on them are unconstitutionally prohibited.

It would include machine guns (in the military, a machine gun belongs to the unit, while rifles and pistols are referred to as "personal weapons."), hand grenades, grenade launchers, bombs, planes, etc.

Again, owning "- planes -" is totally unregulated, just like tanks. Constitutionally speaking, either are 'ordnance' or arms.

In an Infantry squad, there are typically only two soldiers allowed to fire their M-16 on fully automatic, so one could easily argue that a fully automatic weapon of any kind is "ordnance."

Allowed? How confused. In battle any soldier fires any weapon at hand to kill the enemy. This is a poor argument made only to favor prohibitions on machine guns.

On the other hand, to argue "assault weapons" (whatever that means) are not "arms" is ridiculous - the semi-automatic variety is exactly what would have been considered "arms" under the 2nd Amendment (IMHO).

And so is the "full automatic variety". Only gun grabbers 'see' a difference.

Not sure about the sawed off shotgun in Miller - I can see the point, but think this was more likely the Court trying to introduce some of it's own Constitutional interpretation. I don't know for sure, but I think the military has used and continues to use short-barreled shotguns.

They do, at short ranges, they spray out more lethal 'bullets' than a submachine gun, just as fast.. -- Proving that machine guns are no more deadly 'ordnance' than small arms.

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.

Your belief that 'ordnance' is not arms is flawed. Prior to the Firearms Act of '33, all types of arms/ordnance were unregulated. -- That 'Act' was a bald unconstitutional infringement.

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."

You're nitpicking common english usage in order to 'win' a political argument that was settled by ratification of the Constitution. Cannons, machine guns, etc, -- what you call 'ordnance' were all unregulated for the first 150 years of the Republic.

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.

You're ignoring that some powers are prohibited to States; -- one is infringing on our right to arms.

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.

The 'majority rule' theory you've outlined does not trump the clear words of the 2nd. State have no power to 'oulaw' arms/ordnance.

Finally, if you accept that there is the capability of the Federal government to outlaw nukes,

The feds closely regulate nuclear, bio, & chemical substances that can be used for weapons. They do not 'outlaw' them. Lots of companies & people own and use such materials, very carefully..

then you are admitting that the 2nd Amendment right is not absolute with all weaponry.

Reasonable regulations can be legislated, as long as they do not deprive people of "life, liberty or property without due process of law". --- Try to understand the principle behind the 14th.

That only bolsters my assertion that while Arms are specifically included, ordnance is not specifically covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Why do you want to give government the power to prohibit arms/ordnance? The State of CA is presently forbidding the possession or transfer of some semi-auto arms, using your type of reasoning. -- You approve?

I said:An individual could own ordnance, but it was not expected to be that way, so it was not considered a right and was not put in the 2nd Amendment.

You replied:Pure supposition.. -- Nothing in the Constitution itself or in the documentary record leading to it's ratification supports that theory.

And where is your documentary evidence that ordnance was included in the 2nd Amendment?

The ownership of tanks [of any sort] is not regulated/outlawed. Only the arms mounted on them are unconstitutionally prohibited.

Sorry, I was not specific enough about either tanks or planes. You are correct, when I was mentioning either, I was only referring to the weapons on them. I have known of several people who own tanks and private ownership of airplanes is obviously not prohibited.

Allowed? How confused. In battle any soldier fires any weapon at hand to kill the enemy.

How confused. The difference between a mob and the military is mainly in the discipline of the personnel. Firing a weapon on full automatic without a stabilizing attachment (such as an M-16, without a bipod) generally wastes ammunition and hits less than well-aimed semi-automatic fire. For that reason, the military regulates how personnel are to use the weapons they are given. Rambo was a joke and would have been bounced out of every unit I was ever in.

Reasonable regulations can be legislated, as long as they do not deprive people of "life, liberty or property without due process of law". --- Try to understand the principle behind the 14th.

This is actually the gun-grabbers argument. What are "reasonable" regulations? If the 2nd means ALL weaponry, arms and ordnance, then it is an absolute right (subject only to punishment for abuses of the rights of others). That is, you could own a nuclear weapon, but could be prosecuted for misusing it. The 2nd actually means all arms and it is an absolute right - subject to prosecution for misuse of the arms (such as shooting your neighbor without just cause).

By the way, "life, liberty or property without due process of law" is in the 5th Amendment. The 14th merely extends this to the individual states.

You have obviously been nit-picking my argument so much you are ignoring my points. Earlier, I specifically said that the semi-auto arems are covered under the 2nd Amendment (you even quoted that), now you are saying that I said the opposite.

This is boring - you are not debating principles, you are semantically arguing on the meaning of each phrase in my posts - looking for things like the planes vs weapons on the planes (it should have been obvious that I meant the weapons, since planes can be privately owned). I gave up this kind of argument in high school. I will go elsewhere, where I can get a reasoned argument. Thanks for playing.