- Thread Starter
- #481
I really recommend you read the book I suggested in a previous post.As I suspected, the term "arms" was designed to describe items that a person would use, in his hand, to defend themselves. I'm okay with that list. Musket hunting is certainly easier than hunting with my bows...
It's particularly enlightening that they had the term ordnance at the time, but chose not to use it in the 2A.
Personally, I consider any semi-auto weapons designed for warfare, to in fact be "ordnance" and not "arms."
In my opinion, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion you are wrong about semi-autos being "ordnance".
Again, as I have posted elsewhere, the technology wasn't frozen in the 1790s...what military soldiers (infantry) could have, citizens could have. It is clear in the writings of that period.
The militia was distinct from any standing army; it was the citizenry. The standing army was covered in the main body of the Constitution. The 2A added protections for the state militia (regular and reserve) and for citizens to have those arms (complementary, not citizens who actively served in the militia).