[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah sure and Roe v. Wade is as much in the constitution as is those things which are NOT "arms" are in the 2d amendment. Either words mean what they say or we are in a state of anarchy.

American ships were forbidden to carry cannons during a point in the Jefferson administration when he was trying to avoid war with France or Britain. Nothing in the constitution protects the right to arm private ships although it was generally not forbidden.

In addition, privateers were not allowed to operate without government authorization. That authorization was what distinguished "privateer" from "pirate."

Those worrying about the potential "tyranny" of a government of the people were precisely those OPPOSED to the Constitution in the first place. Like Hamilton and Madison said there was no right given the fedgov to abrogate the RKBA in the first place. Nor did the amendment prevent the states from doing just that as the Southern states routinely did regarding Blacks.

[Dead Corpse]

Two wrongs don't make a right troll. Just as Roe V. Wade was an abuse of judicial power, so is every gun law in this country.

Forbidding the firing on of foriegn ships is a LOT different than stripping us of our Second Amendment protected Rights.

[ctdonath2]

The word "arms" IS in the Constitution. I have yet to see ANY definition or indication leading one to believe the Founding Fathers meant any restriction on the term, esp. limiting to individual usability. In many many discussions like this, I have NEVER seen any limited definition of arms other than what current posters make up.

American ships were forbidden to carry cannons during a point in the Jefferson administration when he was trying to avoid war with France or Britain.

Reference, please. Particularly the law doing the forbidding.

Nothing in the constitution protects the right to arm private ships although it was generally not forbidden.

2nd Amendment. A citizen owns a ship => the citizen has the right to arm it.

In addition, privateers were not allowed to operate without government authorization.

Key word: "operate". The issue is not permitting what they have, the issue is permitting what they do. As others have noted above, Letters Of Marque regard letting individual citizens conduct war against another country with the permission, but not the aid, of the USA gov't.

Like Hamilton and Madison said there was no right given the fedgov to abrogate the RKBA in the first place.

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself. The fedgov was never given the right to abrogate individual possession of ANY arms.

Nor did the amendment prevent the states from doing just that as the Southern states routinely did regarding Blacks.

Hence the need for the 14th Amendment, clarifying that the Bill Of Rights applies to all citizens directly, and the states have no power/right to abrogate RKBA. (Unfortunately, SCOTUS has insisted every enumerated right applies to the people except RKBA - but they haven't ruled the opposite either.)