[SauronOfMordor]

Yes, the 2nd amendment says “arms”, a generic term which includes all sorts of weapons.

An argument could be made that it does not include heavy crew-served weapons, but at the time you had civilian ownership of cannons.

[Texas Fossil]

Well, unless things have changed, you can own a cannon, if it is an antique cannon. It was so heavy, that he had to move it by truck and trailer. The somewhat narrow steel rimmed wheels would make a mess of an asphalt street.

Had a friend who had a naval cannon on his front lawn. He had a steel rimmed wooden carriage built for it. Every 4th of July he would shoot it (with no projectile).

[FreedomPoster]

>>An argument could be made that it does not include heavy crew-served weapons, but at the time you had civilian ownership of cannons.

Not to mention well-armed ships with multiples of them.

Otherwise, there would have been no need for Letters of Marque and Reprisal to be in the Constitution.

[hanamizu]

“...but at the time you had civilian ownership of cannons.”

---

Not according to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr, that noted University of Pennsylvania professor who graduated at the top of his law school class and whose son, Beau, died in Iraq.
/s

[Hiddigeigei]

"An argument could be made that it does not include heavy crew-served weapons, but at the time you had civilian ownership of cannons."
As a pre teenager in the 1930, the family library include a Bannerman's catalog that included Civil War cannons. My father used it to buy two brass-basket-handled naval cutlasses with which my brother and I played.

[zeugma]

An argument could be made that it does not include heavy crew-served weapons, but at the time you had civilian ownership of cannons.

The argument can be made, but it would be categorically wrong. The Constitution specifically mentions Letters of Marque, which very strongly implies private ownership of crew-served weapons.