I know that!
SCOTUS is trying to define the term ARMS in a way that could prohibit handguns.
Today, I have been trying to explain that the term ARMS can and will include anything from bacteria to atomic weapons, if the citizens of the United States decide to fight.
When the French citizens used a chemical introduced into the fuel tanks of German vehicles during WWII, was that chemical not being used as an arm?
When a briefcase using acid as a trigger was placed under Hitler's table, was that not being used as an arm?
People today seem like they are ASKING PERMISSION FROM THE SCOTUS to protect their own lives.
What is wrong with that statement?
Today, I have been trying to explain that the term ARMS can and will include anything from bacteria to atomic weapons, if the citizens of the United States decide to fight.
I'm not, and didn't, dispute that. FYI, the Constitution also has a clause in Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress) that gives the Congress power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. These are a license to be a pirate, a privateer, against the naval forces of a nation hostile to us. Actions like this happened frequently during the Revolution (which the drafters and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment knew about, and likely participated in). Such Letters were issued in the War of 1812.
OK, so you're a patriotic ship owner in 1812, and you want to help your country. What are you going to do, ram the HMS ARROGANT LIMEY? No, not quite - you're going to use cannon against it. Cannon that YOU OWN.
End of story. Arms are, as you've stated, far more than just firearms.