Bart said:
The Founders pretty clearly demonstrated they knew the difference between the words "arms" and "ordnance" in the Congressional reports and Continental Congress correspondence of the time. If they meant to include "ordnance" under the Second Amendment, why did they use the word "arms?"
There would be then, and to this day is, no need to list ordinance separately or specifically. Ordinance is a subset of arms. "Arms" is all encompassing.
Since
Webster's was written subsequent to the Constitution, a better dictionary to use would be one that is contemporary to and written just before the Constitution:
Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language was written in 1755, a mere 21 years prior to the Declaration of Independence and a mere 32 years prior to the writing of the Constitution.
Johnson's defines arms as, "weapons of offence or armour of defence". "Ordnance" is defined as "cannon; great guns". Be they little guns or great guns, the operative word is "guns", and we all know that a gun is an arm.
Johnson's defines "gun" as: "The general name for firearms; the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire".
Bart said:
To put it another way, other than by inference and implication - how do you show SCOTUS that what you say is true? Because we are a LONG ways from a culture that will tolerate the private ownership of ordnance based on an implied right.
Well, for one thing, the right is not implied. It's specific. For another thing, we need not show the SCOTUS anything. I'm quite sure they know all this. The question is whether they have the honesty and candor to come out and say it.
It should also be noted that "regulate" is defined in
Johnson's as:
1. To adjust by rule or method.
2. To direct.
I see no mention of restrictions in this definition. Even today - short of the Supreme Court's unconstitutional addition of "limit" and "prohibit" to the definition of "regulate" - regulate means,
"to control according to a rule; to cause to conform to a standard or needs; to adjust so as to put in good order." I would think the Founding Fathers would have included something along the lines of restrictions in the Second Amendment if they wished for there to be restrictions upon the right. They would have written it something like this:
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for prudent restrictions as Congress or the several state legislatures may determine by law."
Always keep in mind that the Second Amendment is not about defining our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but about the prohibition upon government to infringe upon the right what ever it encompasses. The right is absolute and inalienable. If we had no government, we would have no more or no less right to arms to survive, remain free, and protect our personal sovereignty. Just because we've agreed to form a union for our convenience does not diminish any right we have. Those in our government have it bass ackwards.
WE'VE loaned
THEM power to arm up in our common defense. We need not look to them for permission to arm ourselves. The Second Amendment prohibits such a function.
Woody
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
