First of all these quotations you reference in some cases did not support the point you claimed. For example, Washington's quote did not refer to fighting a tyrannical domestic government as you claimed was the main reason the 2d existed. Jefferson is not a good source for constitutional wisdom and he very likely would have opposed the document had he been in the country when it was created. And he liked to bluster idealistically when he did not have to do anything. Madison generally brought him back down to earth.
Others were general sentiments not unusual to that period or relevent to the point that there is no right for any idividual or groups, such as terrorists or criminal gangs, to possess any weapon they wish.
There is nothing in those quotes indicating that the Founders were saying that private possession of ANY weapon which can be created was protected. They would have thought you Nuts for such a claim. Many wouldn't even let a Black man have a pistol or is your view they were saying Nukes for All but Blacks?
I don't think they were concerned about private possession of warships and cannon particularly at certain periods when they were beneficial to the fedgov but that is not what was referred to in the 2d. They were necessities in a period of weak federal power and piracy a constant threat. Jefferson considered armed merchants to be a constant threat to peace and at one point opposed all but coastal trading by American ships. AND he embargoed ALL trade with England and France which is a damn sight more than controlling armaments.
you are remarkably good at misreading, misrepresenting, and misunderstanding both my writing (a trivial matter) and those of the Founders (a serious matter).
I must conclude that, no matter what proofs are brought to bear, you shall obdurately resist learning the facts and correcting your error.
That being so, I bid you farewell.
'tis plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment. If you won't accept the plain meaning, nothing further can be discussed.
To have a free state, security must be provided.
To have security, there must be a well-regulated (i.e., equipped and trained) militia.
The militia is the people, well equipped and trained.
To be well equipped and trained, the people must keep and bear their own arms.
To have and practice arms, the people must not be restrained in what they own.
The Founding Fathers saw that, for the country to be secure from enemies within and without, the people must have the tools and skills needed for war. A professional standing army was only desireable insofar as the people were not themselves ready to do the job. The Founding Fathers believed this so much that they later (1792) required by law that practically everyone be armed at least to a minimum standard; there was NEVER EVER EVER any indication by the Founding Fathers that anyone should be limited (number or scale) in what arms they owned (the closest being a requirement that armed ships post a refundable bond before heading out, lest they cause trouble - that restricted use, not ownership).
The Founding Fathers sought an ideal wherein the people could be called up to wage then- (and now-) modern war. Doing so presumes the people could bring suitable arms: mostly small arms, but some bringing large-scale crew-served arms if such could be afforded. Gov't-run armories provided what the people could not.
NOWHERE do the Founding Fathers indicate the people should be limited in what arms they owned.
To argue otherwise is absurd; in this lengthy thread, advocates of such a preposterous view have indeed failed to provide supporting documentation, while their opponents have posted much.
Methinks the thread has petered out. Advocates of the limited-definition-of-"arms" view have had ample time to back up arguments with historical documentation, but have instead fallen into name-calling. 'tis time to end the debate, and start consolidating the very interesting facts which have been provided.