[Jim Verdolini]

Two problems with your use of the Constitution. First, note that it mentions Government granting letters of Marque. If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

Next, Madison's notes come from the Constitutional Convention which occurred 2 years before he wrote a Bill of rights. The use of privateers discussed at the Constitutional convention could not be based on a right that was only drafted 2 years later.

No, the right protected by the 2dn is best described in the Militia Act of 1792 here:

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

No mention of cannon there.

You confuse owning a cannon with having a protected right under the Constitution to own a cannon. The founders simply did not grant protection to the cannon nor did they forbid them. They left that up to the states.

[ctdonath2]

If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

"Letters of Marque" were included in the Constitution so Congress could permit individuals to attack other countries, as a matter of foreign policy. It did not address permitting citizens from owning the arms in the first place.

[Dead Corpse]

Letters of M&R are essentially the same as deputizing someone. No more. No less. The "permission" is for privateers to act against enemies with legality, not so much the arming of said ships.

Once again, the Militia Act establishes minimums required for militia service only. It does not speak to what limitations there are on the Secdon Amendment at all.

[King Prout]

you suffer from tunnel-vision:

The Constitution of the United States... ARTICLE I... Section 8. Powers of Congress... The Congress shall have the power... 11.To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...

A letter of marque and reprisal is a congressional writ authorizing a private citizen to cunduct maritime acts of war against a foreign enemy's assets, military/naval and/or shipping/commercial, using his own privately owned ship(s) armed with his own privately owned cannons.

[steve-b]

First, note that it mentions Government granting letters of Marque. If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

The permission granted by a letter of marque is to seize or destroy vessels belonging to the target nation, not permission to carry weapons per se. Those are two different issues.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks for posting that excerpt but it will have little impact on those who WANT to believe the 2d allows them to have nuclear and biological weapons.

[R. Scott]

Two problems with your use of the Constitution. First, note that it mentions Government granting letters of Marque. If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

The letter of Marque was not issued to allow the citizen to arm the vessel, but to protect the citizen from charges of piracy.

[El Gato]

Two problems with your use of the Constitution. First, note that it mentions Government granting letters of Marque. If ships armed with cannon were protected under the 2nd, there would be no reason for government to give its permission.

You didn't need permission to *own* the cannon or the ship, only to "go hunting" ships belonging to the nation's enemies.

Next, Madison's notes come from the Constitutional Convention which occurred 2 years before he wrote a Bill of rights. The use of privateers discussed at the Constitutional convention could not be based on a right that was only drafted 2 years later.

The second amendment doesn't *create*, the right, it forbids the government from infringing upon it. The bill of rights was a response to the perceived power of the federal government created by the Constitution. One of those powers was over the state militias, which could be ordered into federal service and whose organization and weapons were to be "provided for" by Congress.