[justshutupandtakeit]

"Arms" are weapons which a man could carry. Firearms are those which use gunpowder and can be carried. Those claiming that the amendment allows possession of any and all weapons are guilty of reading into the document those things they wish. This is exactly what they condemn the liberals for.

[ctdonath2]

There is absolutely NOTHING which indicates the Founding Fathers intended ANY limitation on the "arms" referred to in the 2nd Amendment. To the contrary, these guys had crew-served explosive-shell cannons (used as lawn ornaments when not in use).

Considering that they had just gone thru a war to throw off tyrrany, and done so using personally-owned arms including the largest known at the time (cannons and battleships), they DELIBERATELY included the 2nd Amendment to ensure the people had the tools to take on a government - and win. The ultimate point of RKBA is protection against tyrrany ... and you can't do that effectively when limiting yourself to what an individual can carry.

[Dead Corpse]

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Just firearms that require gunpowder? What about edged weapons? Battle ships? Field cannons? Buy a clue.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... "Arms" are weapons which a man could carry. Firearms are those which use gunpowder and can be carried. Those claiming that the amendment allows possession of any and all weapons are guilty of reading into the document those things they wish."

If that's the case, how can we then explain the relevant passage in the US Constitution which allows for Congress to write out 'Letters of Marque' -- presumably to private citizens who owned seagoing cutters and pinnaces loaded with cannon?

This wouldn't apply to US Navy ships, considering that the US Constitution compels Congress to fund the US Navy.

If not the Navy, then who did the Framers intend for it to apply to?

[Centurion2000]

Those claiming that the amendment allows possession of any and all weapons are guilty of reading into the document those things they wish.

Then be so kind as to explain privateers in 1780's and why they did not have the right to own cannon, frigates and ships ?

[El Gato]

"Arms" are weapons which a man could carry.

I didn't know any man could carry an ICBM, SLBM or long range bomber, yet those have been the subject of "arms" control treaties. As have battleships, cruisers,etc. (That sort of "arms control" never has worked for long either).

[PaRebel]

In the 18th and 19th century, private US citizens owned "privateers" which were, just as implied by the name, privately owned gunboats, which the owners used, on occasion, to "help" the central government.