[ctdonath2]

Because no one posting has made any connection between those references to cannon and the second amendment.

Say what?

If there is ANYTHING which is unquestionably a weapon of war, it's a cannon.

The 2nd Amendment is about the people having the tools to wage war (militia, security of a free state, and all that). If you don't see the connection between the 2nd Amendment and cannon, what pray tell is the point of the 2nd Amendment? I'm flabbergasted you admit not seeing a connection.

[Jim Verdolini]

"If there is ANYTHING which is unquestionably a weapon of war, it's a cannon.

The 2nd Amendment is about the people having the tools to wage war (militia, security of a free state, and all that). If you don't see the connection between the 2nd Amendment and cannon, what pray tell is the point of the 2nd Amendment? I'm flabbergasted you admit not seeing a connection."

In all the debate and in all the laws specifically enacted concerning the 2nd amendment by the founders (for example - The Militia Act), the only "arms" that are specifically addressed are militia capable small arms.

Your argument is entirely derivative. Cannons are arms of war, the second amendment is about arms ergo all arms are included. The problem is you do not connect the dots with cites, laws or court opinions. You just jump.

If there is a connection...show me with proof. Find someone saying the 2nd applied to artillery. Show me a court case that does, a founder who uses cannon and 2nd amendment in the same breath.

Any at all.

All you offer is opinion.