Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BruceS
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.

Well.. wrong. Well laid out, but it completely ignores the fact that private ship owners frequently armed their ships with cannons to ward off piracy or hostile action in foreign waters. This is why the government came up with the idea of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They could commission ships that were ALREADY armed.

If you can afford a TOW, Howitzer 105mm, VULCAN, M134-D, aircraft carrier, or a submarine... go for it.

Trying to parse the Right to Arms downward only sets up arbitrary lines that the gun haters will use to say some guns are too small, and others too large, for civilian use.

Denying that "ordnance" has a "militia purpose", or that "arms" didn't mean "ordnance", is silly. If we need those very types of arms to go after an out of control government, then we should have a right to obtain them by peaceful means. That was the main intent of the Founders.

69 posted on 02/27/2008 6:25:21 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
If we need those very types of arms to go after an out of control government, then we should have a right to obtain them by peaceful means. That was the main intent of the Founders.

Absolutely. It means that we should never have to fear an oppressive government again!

89 posted on 02/27/2008 3:52:16 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson