Ahh, so the thing that goes boom out of a barrel is different than the other thing that goes boom out of a barrel because the government says so.
No. Itâs different because thatâs what the words actually mean.
2 Likes
Only the government can have the big guns, err ordnance. Too bad the framers didnât give you enough rights to fight back if needed. Shucks, I guess when big government says you canât have their âarmsâ err âordnanceâ youâll just have to take them at their word and let them interpret the 2nd amendment for you.
Shall not be infringed. I guess if my arms make too big of a boom the government can say so.
Afghanistan laughs at this post.
If your point is that groups of people can assemble arms and ordnance despite a particular government wishes, I mean, cool thanks Captain Obvious. But like other conservatives in the thread, youalready straying and clouding the topic at hand, namely, whether the framers intended the 2nd amendment to provide protections against people, in terms of their ability to freely bear arms, including err âordnanceâ or if itâs only the big booms they canât have.
Focus
No. My point is that they fought our army to a standstill with âarmsâ and little to no âordinanceâ. They did the same to the Soviets.
1 Like
And what exactly does that have to do with whether or not the 2nd amendment excludes civilians from owning âordnanceâ?
Just because you donât like my answer does not mean that I didnât answer it. Talk about being silly.
More semantics to avoid the heart of the discussion, I see.
Iâm not playing the âifâ game with you. Letâs stick to the subject without conjuring up silly hypotheticals.
You were playing the âifâ game until your silly semantics tripped you up
This is what happens when you canât focus on any argument and bounce around talking point to talking point. A common theme in 2nd amendment debates because, for some reason, conservatives are confident in the 2nd amendment as it is in itself.
Democrats are the ones who should stick with the 2nd Amendment instead embarrassing themselves by applying âreasonable exceptionsâ to the words âshall not infringe.â
2 Likes
The interpretation of law and the writing of law is very much involved in hypotheticals.
The government is not who says so.
2 Likes
Then just say âshall not infringeâ. Why bring up all this other bologna?
Who defines murder?
The government? Doesnât government define laws?
Calm yourself man. We can have ordnance too, but because it is not covered by the 2nd Amendment, the government can pass laws prohibiting possession and use without violating the Constitution. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but have no right to keep and bear ordnance. Got it?
1 Like
Perhaps you need to review the thread title and OP.
That was a direct paraphrasing of your post to which replied. Stop playing games. If you are going to quote me, so so in context.
The framers intent was not to give all the big weapons to the government. Could you own a canon in the 18th century? Tell me, what âordnanceâ did the framers ban? Or did the government just start producing such dangerous arms that they had to play semantic games to strip you of your rights?
