[Ancesthntr]

Be that as it may, their right to keep and bear arms would not have been protected by the second amenmdment.

How, then, would the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause of Article 1, Section 8 have had any meaning, if the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms (not FIREarms, but ARMS, mind you) wasn't protected against federal government encroachment? Such Letters were, in fact, issued by the Congress in the War of 1812, and many privately armed (with multiple cannon) ships took part in helping the US Navy win the war on the seas against Britain.

Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal mean nothing if someone can't go out and buy a fully-armed warship. Of course, most of us couldn't do it even if the Feds wouldn't try to stop us, due to lack of money. But why couldn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett purchase and outfit their own carrier task forces, if they so desired? Why couldn't they or other individuals purchase smaller boats (say a cigarette boat armed with a quad-.50 or a 20mm minigun) for the same purpose? It seems to me that there is no legal reason whatsoever - just fear, fear that the common man won't tolerate being pushed around by the powers-that-be.

[wastedyears]

I don’t know if a boat that small can handle a weapon that large.

[robertpaulsen]

"Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal mean nothing if someone can't go out and buy a fully-armed warship."

Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal would not be necessary if the right was protected.

"It seems to me that there is no legal reason whatsoever"

The Founders defined a well regulated Militia. A private militia does not qualify.