Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
5,121
Location
Kingfisher County
I posted this earlier today on HotAir:

"Arms" is defined as weapons of offense and armor of defense. A sword, knife, razor, spear, or arrow - anything with an 'edge' - is a weapon. Yup. The right to keep and bear edged weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.

Woody
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
5,121
Location
Kingfisher County
Lol, well until someone can tell me why "shall not be infringed" is ignored then I don't see why defining "arms" is so important.

It may not seem important but it is a fallacy the anti-gun-rights crowd is using to parse arms into many categories in an attempt to claim some types of arms are not really arms included in scope of the Second Amendment. There were arguments claiming cannon and bombs and such were not arms but were ordinance, and ordinance was not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Weapons too big to be carried or operated by one person were claimed to be beyond the Second Amendment's scope.

The Left's wordsmiths, obfuscators, equivocators and other purveyors of the Sphinctorial Arts have been at it for decades trying to disarm us with all manner of malapropism, vitiation, misnomers, litotes, synesis, fancy neologisms, and misleading tropes all in an attempt to demagogue their ordure into what they hope we will perceive as logical, viable, and comprehensive reasons why we ought to lay down our arms and kiss their feet.

They may kiss my ass. :NO:

Woody
 

emapples

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,661
Reaction score
3,939
Location
Arrow Repaired
It may not seem important but it is a fallacy the anti-gun-rights crowd is using to parse arms into many categories in an attempt to claim some types of arms are not really arms included in scope of the Second Amendment. There were arguments claiming cannon and bombs and such were not arms but were ordinance, and ordinance was not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Weapons too big to be carried or operated by one person were claimed to be beyond the Second Amendment's scope.

The Left's wordsmiths, obfuscators, equivocators and other purveyors of the Sphinctorial Arts have been at it for decades trying to disarm us with all manner of malapropism, vitiation, misnomers, litotes, synesis, fancy neologisms, and misleading tropes all in an attempt to demagogue their ordure into what they hope we will perceive as logical, viable, and comprehensive reasons why we ought to lay down our arms and kiss their feet.

They may kiss my ass. :NO:

Woody
Well they won't be disarming me so I am not concerned but I don't see anywhere in the second amendment that says if you are a felon you can't have a gun.....although I understand the responding it still says "shall not be infringed" so once you've paid your dues to society you should get a new start.
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
5,121
Location
Kingfisher County
Well they won't be disarming me so I am not concerned but I don't see anywhere in the second amendment that says if you are a felon you can't have a gun.....although I understand the responding it still says "shall not be infringed" so once you've paid your dues to society you should get a new start.

If there is someone who cannot be trusted with arms, they should not be let out of prison. We shouldn't have to 'prove' we can be trusted with arms to get one. All those adjudicated untrustworthy should be locked up until it can be proven they can be trusted with arms.

Woody
 

emapples

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,661
Reaction score
3,939
Location
Arrow Repaired
If there is someone who cannot be trusted with arms, they should not be let out of prison. We shouldn't have to 'prove' we can be trusted with arms to get one. All those adjudicated untrustworthy should be locked up until it can be proven they can be trusted with arms.

Woody
This is always the problem with regulation and why it's so problematic .....who gets to make those decisions?

I mean if the government makes the decision they can find away to get you on the no gun list
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom