Arms and guns

Via email from JHardin:

Just getting SO tired of “where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about *guns*?”


After we get machine guns and other NFA weapons secured without taxes we need artillery.


17 thoughts on “Arms and guns

  1. If the word “arms” in the Second Amendment doesn’t refer to weapons particularly suitable for military/militia use, what kind of weapons does it refer to?

    If “the people” in the Second Amendment aren’t the general population, who are “the people” in the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?

    If “keep” doesn’t mean to own or possess, what does it mean?

    If “bear” doesn’t mean to carry on your person, what does it mean?

  2. “Artillery Lends Dignity to What Otherwise Would Be A Common Brawl” Ralph Michael Stein

  3. If “Arms” does not include firearms and ammunition, how can “The Press” possibly include Telephones, Radio, the Internet, and Computers?

    • Really? Your going to try logic and intellectual exercise on someone that would make that ignorant an argument?
      I applaud your commitment to rise up even the lowest of humanity!
      Though I fear they will turn and rend you for the effort.

      • That is indeed the danger. Even, or rather especially, my Stalinist Sister-in-Law believes any argument is stronger at higher volume. And after the shouting we can be confident comes the fisticuffs.

  4. Is that what the communists call an argument? HAHAHAHAHA! Hooo shit!
    Poor bitches. That’s to funny. How embarrassing.
    Kamela, and the squad must have put their heads together, to come up with that one! Or maybe the Ivy league debate team?
    No matter, that’s one powerful pile of stupid they got going there.
    Whatever the word arms means. The framers definitely did not want the government to infringe on our ability to keep and bear’em!
    Also, (lets get ahead of the curve on this one.) The word is bear. Not bare. As to what you can do with your arms? Just trying to puzzle this one out before it gets to painful.

  5. My understanding was that “arms” meant man-portable, which would exclude cannon*. On the other hand, if they include “armour of defense” that would make the bans on body armor blatantly unconstitutional.

    * All weapons of war should be licit for a citizen; to me “bear arms” is a shorthand for martial action of all legal kinds, but I am neither an historian nor a lawyer.

    • The contemporary dictionary definition doesn’t make that distinction. But I do see the need for some objective upper limit to stave off the idiots who can’t distinguish between a Glock and Little Boy.

      My personal rule of thumb is: if it’s part of the TOE of a mechanized infantry company (or equivalent – an AK74 or FAL is as valid as an M-4 or M-14), or in common civilian use, it’s covered.

  6. Ukraine shows the need for MANPADs and antitank rockets in common use. At least RPG level for the price/performance ratio.

  7. You can have a cannon now, without messing about with the NFA, it just needs to be a muzzleloading cannon. No size or bore restrictions or any federal paperwork at all unless you make exploding or incendiary shells. Solid shot? Canister or grape shot? Chain shot? No one cares.

    I own and shoot a 3” bore muzzleloading mortar. I use empty green bean cans half full of cement (ironically, “mortar mix”) as projectiles. One ounce of Fg black powder will send those projectiles roughly 400 yards. Weighing about 1 lb, you have to load them nose first or the “skirt” will blow out, greatly reducing range and accuracy. After exiting the muzzle the flip around and fly nose first like a demonic shuttlecock.

    Nothing quite as satisfying as the “WHOOMP!” you feel in your chest when shooting artillery.

    And the purchase and ownership of cannons like that has never, ever been regulated.

    So old Shotgun Joe was talking out his posterior region when he said you couldn’t own a cannon.

    • > You can have a cannon now, without messing about with the NFA,
      > it just needs to be a muzzleloading cannon.

      …until the law changes.

    • That reminds me of an article I read some years ago where someone built a bowling ball cannon, made from well casing. It sent the ball close to a mile.

  8. The Romish leftist leaders know exactly what the word means, and they know exactly what the second amendment means. They’re just hoping that there are enough ignorant people who will believe their lies. This is where public education comes in. It has been one of their most potent weapons.

  9. “After we get machine guns and other NFA weapons secured without taxes we need artillery.”

    Without ANY Taxes, or just specifically the $5 or $200 NFA taxes? Remember, there are OTHER taxes on even ‘regular’ firearms (and ammo, etc.). Because if we’re going to open that can of worms, then I’d like to pose a question to the audience:

    Is a RIGHT taxable?

    If you need to pay a ‘tax’ to engage in an activity (or be punished in some way if caught), then are you not simply ‘buying permission’?

    Need one seek ‘permission’ to enjoy a Right?

    • Sorry, I just found this comment in the SPAM folder. Not sure why that happened. Anyway…

      I want all the special taxes on arms repealed. Sales tax on guns and ammo is the same as that for clothing and laundry soap? Okay. I’ll scowl but won’t put energy into getting it repealed.

      Artillery rights? I would work on that before or simultaneously repealing, or at least reducing, the Pittman-Robertson tax.

  10. The Constitution grants Congress the power to issue ‘letters of marque and reprisal’. This alone implies privately owned warships lest there be no one to whom such letters be issued.

Comments are closed.