Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 2997288" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>They may kiss my ass. <img src="/images/smilies/NO.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":NO:" title="NO :NO:" data-shortname=":NO:" /></p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 2997288, member: 745"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom