Skip to content

Open Thread

October 5, 2009

This Open Thread was submitted by Daniel Crandall who said:

We put this together in response to this video – – by a bunch of paid pretenders, including Will Ferrell, stumping for ObamaCare at

  1. P-Diddle permalink
    October 5, 2009 3:26 pm

    This was a fantastic video. Thanks for posting it! Sarcasm is one of my favorite things.

  2. October 5, 2009 4:33 pm

    Yeah…. My brother e mailed me the ad and the parody earlier. It was neat.

    Mr. Swindle,

    Didn’t you ask me for a source for people not owning cannons under the 2nd amendment?

    I found this:

    2009 October 4 Underzog permalink

    00Rate This

    I found this from the Second Amendment Foudation website: Right to posses arms (near bottom excerpt from the link)

    “The Oregon Supreme Court defined what constitutes arms in a constitutional sense in State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, 98-99 (1980):

    [T]he term “arms” as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term “arms” was not limited to firearms, but included several hand carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term “arms” would not have included cannon or other heavy ordinance not kept by militiamen or private citizens. . . . [A]dvanced weapons of mode[rn] warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual’s “right to bear arms, ” the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not “arms” which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term “arms” in the constitution does not include such weapons, If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia “for defense of the State,” then the term “arms most likely would include only the modem day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial militiamen.” (emphasis added)


    • October 5, 2009 4:38 pm

      Yeah I saw that when you posted it. Oregon Supreme Court, very interesting. But nothing from what the founders themselves said? As another commenter on that thread pointed, it is legal to own the cannons used during the revolutionary war.

      • October 5, 2009 5:57 pm


        I don’t think I should comment much more on this because this is a different thread; however, I was reading from Wayne LaPierre’s book on the 2nd amendment and he quotes George Mason, a coauthor of the 2nd amendment, as describing the militia as the people and saying such a person should have the equivalent of a gun/rifle with ammo and implements to keep such a weapon in order (see page five of “Guns, Crime, and Freedom by Wayne LaPierre for George Mason’s actual quote).

        I’m not so sure the use of cannons during the Revolutionary War has all that much basis for including cannons, vs gas, trident nuclear missiles; etc., in the second amendment. And I can see why courts that are even friendly to private gun ownership would think the founding father’s thought along the same lines.

        I hope this helps.

        • October 5, 2009 6:05 pm

          Oh it’s OK to comment about it.

          Thanks for the perspective. It’s a good argument.

Comments are closed.