[El Gato]

They had bombs and artillery back when the Constitution was adopted by the states, but the 2nd Amendment clearly didn't make provision for the citizenry to have a right to possess or use them.

That turns out not to be the case. Private ownership of cannon armed warships, was aknowledged in the main body of the Constitution, even before the second amendment was ratified, which provides Congress the power to issue letters of Marque. This ammounted to a "hunting license" for enemy shipping. The individuals didn't need the letter to own the cannon, nor the ships, nor to fit the ships with the cannon (although they did sometimes store the cannon until needed, when the ships were otherwise employed). Towns, more properly the militia of towns, and some indivduals did own artillery at the time. All are "arms" which the right of people to keep and bear is protected by the second amendment.

[vbmoneyspender]

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.

Right to Bear (Some) Arms