[Ramius]

There were cannon in the days of the Founding Fathers. Were those included (either implicitly or explicitly) in the discussion of the “arms” we could keep and bear? Just curious.

The word "arms" has a fairly specific meaning, and that is personal weaponry carried by a foot soldier. Cannon and such larger weapons are more properly classified as "ordnance". I think the founders knew the difference and had they meant something beyond the "arms" of a soldier they'd have said it.

There's a practical matter to it as well. The militia was expected to keep and care for their own arms, and when the call came to muster... to show up with those arms. Logistically, treating the big stuff that way would have been awfully complex. Having all the larger ordnance bought and owned by the governor and kept and cared for down at the armory just makes more sense.

[JamesP81]

Cannon and such larger weapons are more properly classified as "ordnance". I think the founders knew the difference and had they meant something beyond the "arms" of a soldier they'd have said it.

Unfortunately, history doesn't exactly support this view. As I mentioned in a previous post, there was once something called a privateer. A privateer captain owned his own ship, and armed with his own weapons which included smoothbore cannon.

[William Tell]

Ramius said: The word "arms" has a fairly specific meaning, ...

So the SALT talks with the Russians, the "Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty" talks, were about the personal weaponry carried by foot soldiers?

Nonsense.

[Harvey105]

“Having all the larger ordnance bought and owned by the governor and kept and cared for down at the armory just makes more sense.”

Not if the governor is the tyrant that is oppressing you.