Correct. You reply to one post with a talking point that completely contradicts another talking point you just made. The bouncy ball 2nd amendment debate bounces further
Yes. People can and did own cannons back then. Yes it was ordinance.
Later the government put restrictions on ordinance, and those restrictions were lawful because itās not protected by the second amendment.
Also: itās not illegal to own ordinance. People can and do buy it. The process and expense of acquiring it is just so steep that itās not worth the hassle to all but the very few that desire it that bad. All perfectly constitutional because ordinance is not arms, and not protected by the 2nd.
1 Like
I disagree. The 2nd amendment doesnāt define āarmsā nor does it distinguish ordnance vs arms. Clearly this is all the governments attempt to make āreasonableā regulation in the face of dangerous arms. Shall not infringeā¦unless the boom is too big.
There we go.
If you want to argue that ordinance and arms are synonymous be my guest.
No one else, even us ardent gun nuts do.
Amazing
Thank you. I am quite the legal scholar. Wait until you hear my argument that rape isnāt ārapeā unless the government says it is in law. Or that the founders intended the US government to have unchecked wartime weaponry.
OR, we can all be adults and say that reasonable regulation of rights and implementation of law is necessary to a functioning society.
What does the 2nd Amendment say?
There is nothing āreasonableā about any demand I have seen you hoplophobes make. You voting on what I have on my hip is not āreasonableā.
Why do I scare you?
2 Likes
Amazing
That they included it? Or that it is so clear?
Absent me actually causing you real harm, not vapors from seeing a gun in a holster, why do you think you get a say in what I do or donāt carry?
2 Likes
Yes, you could own canons in the 18th century. In fact, most canon used by the Continental Army were privately owns cannons. By the way, you can still own canons today. You can also own rocket launchers and flame throwers and tanks. Before you embarrass yourself further, you should do your homework ā¦ literally.
2 Likes
Maybe you donāt know what āin contextā means. This is the context of my āifā statement that you quoted:
My āifā statement was a direct paraphrase of your āifā statement.
Now knock it off and get back on topic. Please.
The Constitution doesnāt define any term. Itās not a dictionary, itās a set of rules for the government and a list of rights that limit the power of government. The words therein hold the meaning they had when the Document was penned, and including the word āarmsā and āinfringe.ā That latter word, by the way, means the same today as it did then. āShall not infringeā is perhaps the strongest statement against government power found in the entire Document.
2 Likes
You may not know crap about guns and the Constitution, but you certainly have a sense of humor. 
1 Like
Iāll be glad when they tell us where and how he got the guns.
Well damnit!
Seventh Son
Why damnit? Colorado has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. What additional law would have kept him from acquiring a gun? The facts suggest that more laws wonāt stop people with murder in their minds from acquiring guns.
No need for any kind of checks then is there? Who ever wants one should be able to get one. Ex cons convicted of murder, etc etc etcā¦Guns for all.
