Posted on 04/20/2010 8:32:52 AM PDT by Biggirl
Oh brother, I hate it when 2nd amendment arguments descend to this level. Chris Matthews has a Second Amendment activist on his show clearly with the intent of turning him into a kook.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
True but congress critters want to use the commerce clause to govern the inter state trade of such items. Technically, there is not a restriction but a tax. However, the reality is that the process to obtain the tax is so prohibitive as to effectively be a restriction.
I also (sometimes & rarely) watch the little tingly one for a laugh.
Larry Pratt, (GOA) & Coryell (sic) were not prepared for the usual obvious questions, IMO.
“There is a difference in 1700 / 1800 lexicon between “arms” and “ordnance”.”
Nope.
“Therefore, we should be allowed to carry every terrible implement of the soldier. Regular soldiers do not carry nuclear weapons or missiles or even bazookas.”
You are reading far too much restriction into his statement.
What he meant is “every weapon of war”, not “every implement issued to an individual infantryman excluding all crew-served weapons or explosive devices.”
Still, they handled Chrissy fairly well IMHO.
No, I’m reading exactly what he said. Every terrible implement of the soldier.
Do you honestly believe that if the founding fathers could have conceived of such a weapon as a suitcase nuclear bomb that they would think it a good idea for everyone to be able to have it? Seriously, if you believe that you give credence to those on the left who think we are a bunch of nutjobs...
“Sorry sir, you are incorrect. The Latin root for arms is armus. The Latin root for ordnance is ordinant- (s. of ordinÄns ).”
My POINT was that they had no such restriction or limitation in mind, sir. I’m aware of the Latin roots of the actual WORDS and that those words do in fact EXIST.
“Arms” - as used both at the time and today - is the broad category of weapons that includes ordnance. Thus, rifles and other, small, weapons would be “small arms”. Heavy, crew-served weapons are and have always been expensive, so they were commonly purchased by citizen groups.
One other thing we have to look at is the goal of owning arms. If you read into the writings of the founders further you will find that the actual God given right is not the owning of arms. It is the right of self protection. Be it from another person or a tyrannical government. The keeping and bearing of arms is the means by which we are able to use and keep this right.
With that in mind, you have to ask yourself a question. Does owning a missile, a suitcase nuclear bomb etc.. accomplish this goal? Does owning firearms accomplish this goal? You decide...
“Every terrible implement of the soldier.”
Is an artilleryman not a soldier? Coxe did NOT say what you claim he said.
“Do you honestly believe that if the founding fathers could have conceived of such a weapon as a suitcase nuclear bomb that they would think it a good idea for everyone to be able to have it?”
They had little problem with fully-armed warships in private hands. Liberty isn’t safe.
Actually sir you have it backwards. Ordnance includes arms and other supplies for war, not the other way around.
The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee on May 27 to study methods of ammunition procurement and storage and to appoint a “Commissary-General” of the Artillery Stores. Ezekiel Cheever was the appointee and performed what would become the duties of Chief of Ordnance. In 1776 the Board of War and Ordnance was created for issuing supplies to troops in the field, and the first Ordnance magazine was established at Carlisle, Pennsylvania the following year.
“With that in mind, you have to ask yourself a question. Does owning a missile, a suitcase nuclear bomb etc.. accomplish this goal? Does owning firearms accomplish this goal? You decide...”
No, the Constitution decides, not me. The better armed the citizenry, the better able we are to oppose a tyrannical government. Where does YOUR limitation end? Very light infantry weapons, apparently. Stop putting words in Coxe’s mouth.
“Actually sir you have it backwards. Ordnance includes arms and other supplies for war, not the other way around.”
You are using the title of “Chief of Ordnance” as evidence as to what the Founder’s intended? Really, now.
When referring to weapons themselves, not divisions and bureaus, “ordnance” refers to that subset of arms encompassing ranged weapons like cannon and artillery.
“As long as the Congress authorized it by granting letters of Marque. See the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8.”
That’s not what a Letter of Marque is at all.
A common, and oft-dismantled, tired old argument.
1. Those who can afford purchase & maintenance (few indeed) of such things are unlikely to do anything stupid therewith.
2. Anyone who mis-handles or mis-stores ANY arms is subject to immediate disarmament by those facing potential harm. Save for extraordinary cost & effort, anyone possessing WMDs is inherently in violation.
Do the math. Sometimes reducto ad absurdum is just absurd, and a sign of misunderstanding the issue.
“I quoted him and now I’m putting words in his mouth? “
You are adding restrictions to his statement that don’t exist. So, yes, you are.
“By all means, go on his show. He’d love to have you to ruin our case.”
You clearly aren’t part of “our case”. You don’t like the wording of the 2nd? Propose an amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.