For example, it might be worth researching whether there was some clear way to distinguish between the meaning in the 1700's of "arms" and things like cannons. Did the framers mean cannons when they spoke of the right to bear arms? Stuff like that. (Again, NOTHING, like what the socialists are doing because they generally don't seem to care what the Constitution says or means.)
At the time of the Revolution, the continentals had better, more advanced rifles than the red coats. They were accurate out to a couple hundred yards, while those of the red coats were barely accurate at a quarter of that distance.
There were also many citizens who owned ships equipped with cannons. No one questioned their right to 'keep and bear' such powerful weapons. They needed them to protect against pirates on the open sea.
Essentially, the people had better weapons than their government, in many cases.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. All humans are born with that right as a condition of their existence. Like the other amendments, it merely puts the government on notice that these rights are natural, and beyond their jurisdiction or authority.
To answer your question, it should go without saying that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms of whatever description best serve the purpose of protecting them against those who would do them harm. The real question is, where do The People's employees get the authority to limit the capacity, description, or power of their employer's weapons? The employees have NO intrinsic rights, and serve only at the pleasure of their masters, the governed.
It's troubling to me that any conservative would openly wonder about the definition of the word, 'arms', or question the Framers' intent with regards to the 2A. The Framers didn't get to redefine the language, and neither do modern liberals. The word means what it means - in any language you care to speak it.
Well, cannons were expensive items so generally it required an entire town to own one, but yes, a gentleman could own a cannon even though it was ordinance rather than an arm to bear. Can an individual own it's modern equivalent - a small army with machine guns, helicotpers and .50 cals? The answer is yes if you're rich enough.
arms meant cannons... they even let ship owners attack foreign powers on the high seas as privateers.
the left’s argument will then be, what about nuclear weapons, we should all have a nuclear bomb then?
who is our government, but the people. and if they have a nuclear bomb and turn against us, then why shouldn’t we be able to have just the same.
oh the thought of that will make the left scream.
t