that is a good question....don't know.......does that mean my neighbor can mount an antiaircraft gun in his front yard or own a tank to go hunting.......those are extremes but I guess can be classified as firearms......I'm just saying there are limits and what is up for debate is where they are drawn......don't confuse that with me wholesaleing being anti gun....we may have different limits or wording but I am hardly anti gun......my history of ownership, marksmanship with both battle rifles and assault rifles would speak favorably.....you just don't like my limits but I know those who would own a howitzer or toad missles if you let them....theoretically I agree with you that it says the "not be infringed", but the founding fathers couldn't have imagined alot of things.....
That was the case as recently as the 1960s. The only thing that has changed is the liberals' unwillingness to hold people responsible for their own actions. Everyone is a victim nowadays. Sexual predators are sentenced lightly and then murder little girls when paroled. Presidents perjure themselves and get a pass from the US Senate. Cub Scouts are not allowed to carry pocket knives at school.
Would YOU harm your neighbor with an anti-aircraft gun or a tank? I doubt it. Why, then, don't you expect the same restraint from all of your fellow citizens? Why is the solution to societies problems more and more prior restraint? We are making our rules such that little or no discipline is required from even the least well-behaved among us.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not concerned with what people might do with a cannon or a warship? They expected power to be handled responsibly and punished those who failed to do so. Why do you see things so differently than Washington or Jefferson?