I own a cannon.
so what?
Cannons...AND F-15s and nukes!
Yes.
The founding fathers purchased ans owned private cannons.
They loaned them to the Continental Army for the war.
One officer had to direct his troops to take his own cannons and fire on his own house, that a british commander was using as a hq.
So yes. Yes it does. Hell yes.
I like this one from him as well...
Sort of hard to carry a cannon into a shopping mall or movie theater without giving everyone plenty of warning. A cannon, however, doesn’t necessarily meet the definition of an arming weapon. By many historical definitions, it should be something easy to carry and incapable of inflicting area damage to random targets.
Back in the day citizens could own warships which would be the equivalent to a frigate or destroyer now and all the historical equal weapons of the day. It would be equal in today’s world of having the private ownership of an frigate with 5” guns, and VLS launchers loaded with missiles. The idea was to have the citizens on equal or BETTER footing than the government our founders had with good reasons a deep distrust of a strong central government we are living the reasons why they were right about that.
What about tanks? Say you had one that was fully functional, what would they do to you? Asking for a friend.
Yes.
The Supreme Court stand is because the USA has a standing army that can turn against the populace, the right for citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
I know there are certainly private citizens that own operational cannons, we use to have this oldtimer that would bring his out to the local fair and other civic events and fire it off. Now are their any special permits or other requirements to own one? I don’t have a clue about that.
“Do Second Amendment “Arms” Include Cannons?”
It’s supposed to but we have the Union Government which makes it up as it goes along.
Logically, cannons and even more powerful weapons, are what the people’s militia were intended to have to protect the country from a tyrannical regime. Protecting the country would mean that we would need to be as well-armed as the army of the tyrannical regime in order to be able to overcome the threat or at least to deter them.
If the people have lesser weapons, then, they don’t stand a chance, and the founding fathers intended for the people to be well-armed against any threat.
Also keep in mind it is in the Bill of Rights.
If the left breaks it, breaking away from a broken Constitution is an absolute right of every state.
They’ll get you on trailer registration.
Now if your cannon is on a boat, then that might work.
Why the hell not, if you can afford the ammo and use it ina judicious manner....
I’d be happy with a mini-gun.
(No doubt some fraidy-cat at Albany has made a law to forbid this.)
At the outset of the effort that led to our constitution, most of the cannon were either owned by private citizens, were common property of the various militias or were stolen from the crown. Hell yes, the 2nd Amendment means cannon, tanks, bombers, the whole works.
I think it may be limited to what a armed individual could carry on his person: Grenades, LAW, RPG, Javelin…
At the time of the founding, many private ship owners probably owned cannons to fend off pirates.