[jonrick46]

Our founders knew that the citizen had the right to bear arms against the British soldier. This tells me that the citizen must be armed sufficiently against the weapons technology of a military threat. “That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.”

In Colonial times, “arms” were taken any weapon that could be carried. Such arms were a different thing than tanks, cannons and surface to surface missiles with warheads. Such had another name. They were called “ordinance.” These are not constitutionally protect. However, anything that can be carried is protected. A citizen needs to protect himself from a military tyranny foreign or domestic (or a threat from another planet).

[Tzimisce]

Thanks - I’m glad good little “conservatives” like you are working tirelessly to make sure the radical left gets everything it wants. :)

Thanks for selling my liberty so cheaply.

Your philosophy is what got us Obamacare, tax hikes, economic break down and everything else going on right now.

I really appreciate that - I know the guys at DailyKos will. :)

[Joe 6-pack]

"Such arms were a different thing than tanks, cannons and surface to surface missiles with warheads. Such had another name. They were called “ordinance.” These are not constitutionally protect."

To the contrary, the US Navy of the War for Independence relied heavily on privateers, and was fortunate that there were heavily armed ships in private hands.