[rjsimmons]

QuoteDoesn't "arms" have a military connotation? For example, a military person would say that he heard "small-arms fire". A civilian would say he heard "gunfire". Very specific language, indeed.

Arms has come to mean weapons of any and every sort. Read:Arms Race. In the military, Arms is specifically man-portable, anti-personnel. Ordnance is artillery and delivered weaponry, such as Dragon, AT-4, Stinger, TOW, Mk type bombs, etc.

[Dead Corpse]

From etymonline.com

arm (2) - "weapon," 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE base *ar- "fit, join." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is 1330; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. The verb meaning "to furnish with weapons" is from 1205. Arms race first attested 1936.

[robertpaulsen]

I'm not trying to compare or contrast "arms" and "ordnance".

I'm simply saying that "arms" is more a military term. "Guns" is more a civilian term. Do you agree?