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.
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?
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.
Bruce, I've argued that the principles inherent in our founding documents, and the plain words of the Constitution itself in the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th & 14th Amendents make it abundantly clear that our RKBA's [in your own words] "-- is an absolute right (subject only to punishment for abuses of the rights of others).
That is, you could own a nuclear weapon, [subject to reasonable regulations on safe storage] 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). --"
You reject that argument.. You've claimed that 'ordnance' can be 'outlawed' by any level of government.
Case closed. -- Feel proud of arguing ~for~ 'gun control'.
However the soldiers were still issued that fully automatic M-16, or the even less controllable M-14, also full auto. It was only until the advent of the M-16A2 that the soldiers were issued "burst fire" weapons. The M-16A2 fires single shots or 3 round bursts. You cannot own one. But as you state it was military discipline, not the capability of the weapon itself that prohibited full auto fire. The upside of having it, was that there are times when it's useful, even for individual infantrymen, but 3 round burst serves pretty much as well in those circumstances.
Cannon and other ordinance was clearly included in the definition of "arms". A little quote from Thomas Jefferson, as President is illuminating.
Responding to Alexander Hamilton's opinions on the international incident involving a French warship equipped with cannons made in America, Jefferson thought that "Great Britain ought not to complain: for, since the date of the order forbidding that any of the belligerent powers should equip themselves in our ports with our arms, these two cannon are all that have escaped the vigilance of our officers, on the part of their enemies.".
Thus Jefferson thought cannon were included in the definition of arms. Ordinance is thus a subset of the class of arms, not a separate exclusive set.
The fact that individuals could and did own them at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is evidenced by the power granted Congress to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal. Not much point in issuing a letter of Marque if private citizens could not own the cannon armed ships required to execute it. The letter was not a condition of ownership of the ships and cannon. Individuals often owned cannon, although ownership by towns or by local militia units was more common, but that's because they are expensive, hard for individuals to afford.
That is your whole argument in a nutshell huh?
I will go elsewhere, where I can get a reasoned argument. Thanks for playing.
Drive-by-TROLL ???