Look up the references to Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution. I'd say that is a pretty heavy indication of cannon in private citizen's hands.
“There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member.
Look up the references to Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution. I'd say that is a pretty heavy indication of cannon in private citizen's hands.”
I am obviously NOT getting through here. I will try again. There is a very specific distinction throughout the body of Constitutional law between what is specifically beyond the realm of state or Congressional restriction and what is simply allowed. Small arms suitable for a militia are protected because these very types of arms were discussed in detail by the founders, were listed in the Militia Act and have been repeatedly protected by federal court decisions as being a class of weapons that States and Congress cannot preclude. They are protected by the Second Amendment. Other forms of arms may or may not be owned or regulated. Cannon fall into this class as do private vessels designed and outfitted for war. They are NOT protected under the body of Constitutional law under the Second Amendment.
That does not mean that one cannot own them. It does not mean they have not been owned in the past by historic figures and it does not preclude such ownership in the future. All it means is that the protection of the second amendment does not extend to such ownership.
One can quote the 10th amendment till the cows come home BUT the body of law that actually applies does not extend 2nd amendment protection in the manner you wish it did.
You confuse personal wishes with the rule of law, always a mistake.