Howitzers, for instance, are not protected. Nor are .50 caliber machine guns, among others.
Wrong. There is no qualifier. Arms are arms. The amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All those qualifications about howitzers and machine guns are legislative infringements. Admit of any "qualifications" and you negate the amendment because, like the million dollar proposal to the lady, it establishes what it is and now the discussion is about price.
Those who are horrified at the thought of machine guns being part of the referenced "arms" and think that surely you can't mean that have already compromised the amendment and are just arguing about where the line should be drawn, perhaps nothing deadlier than nerf guns are protected, perhaps nothing at all. The limiter on Constitutional arms possession is, of course, the market. I can't afford a howitzer.When the arms get bigger and, to some, scarier, the Constitutionalist mindset of even conservatives (Hannity, etc) turns to jelly.
The right of free speech, unlike the RKBA, is limitable. The 1st says Congress shall make no law..." thus other government entities and private parties are not prohibited from limiting free speech (and the press and religion), but Congress is so prohibited.
The 2nd Amendment is prima facie the amendment considered the most important by the Founders. They worded it to admit of NO limitations. They did not add a "common sense" clause or an "of course that doesn't mean..." clause.
For argument’s sake, how about a nuclear weapon? If anyone can afford one, is it their right to privately own one?