this includes machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery and any other weapon our military possesses..
tanks, aircraft and warships are included in this..
Not quite. Most of what you list is 'ordnance' of which the Founding Fathers were quite familiar with and specifically did not include. Their rationale is debatable, but the distinction is clear. I agree with your major premise about the philosphy of the 2A, in that its primary intent was to provide for the defense against tyranny, which is why militia practice was conducted after church every Sunday throughout the newly founded United States.
You are also correct about the fledgning US government leasing warships, they also wrote letters of marque to the same ends.
you have done a good job of pettifogging the issue..
please state your position in clear English..
thank you
letters of marque
I’ve got my E-mail of Marque here somewhere...
Maybe it’s on my own server...
please tell me where the word “ordinance” appears in the second amendment..
we will talk further after you answer this one..
“Most of what you list is ‘ordnance’ of which the Founding Fathers were quite familiar with and specifically did not include.”
You are incorrect. Private cannons were fairly common at the time. Lots of rich guys owned them.
Grapeshot tends to clear the air as well as the greensward.
Our Founders broke the occupation of Boston by the regular army of their own government by taking the cannon at Fort Ticonderoga which at the time was controlled by their own government.
And yet you believe that these same rebels, who were under threat of hanging for treason, would once again form a government with the power to monopolize the most effective arms?
Do you remember the SALT talks with the Russians? SALT stood for "Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty". When did this limited use of the word "arms" that you claim start and end?
Firearms weren't specifically mentioned either.