[muir_redwoods]

Logically, an unlimited right would entail an unlimited responsibility since rights are always connected to responsibilities. I am satisfied that the second amendment does not allow me to buy a tactical nuke or a battle ship or some other weapon of mass destruction. I do think I should be able to be as well armed as the typical infantryman but I’m ahead of the courts on that one.

[Theoria]

'I am satisfied that the second amendment does not allow me to buy a tactical nuke or a battle ship or some other weapon of mass destruction. '

Having those weapons does not harm anyone, nor should Gov't take away ones rights on the pretext of future harm or potential danger.

[El Laton Caliente]

Logically, an unlimited right would entail an unlimited responsibility since rights are always connected to responsibilities. I am satisfied that the second amendment does not allow me to buy a tactical nuke or a battle ship or some other weapon of mass destruction. I do think I should be able to be as well armed as the typical infantryman but I’m ahead of the courts on that one.

Since there is a clause on Letters of Marque, the Constitution assumes private citizens and companies would own war ships.

I only assume WMDs, Nuclear, Chemical and Biological, are not covered. Local Militias owned their own cannon and mortars.

[RedMonqey]

I do think I should be able to be as well armed as the typical infantryman but I’m ahead of the courts on that one.

That is my opinion as well. I believe the original founders believed the nation needed men that could be "battled ready" if the need arisen, whether to defend the nation against foreign or domestic threat.

This meant at the least the abilities that an common soldier would need. Thus an M-16 would be as common today as an musket would have been in their Revolutionary era.

Cannons would have required special training and were expensive thus not an common item every soldier would carry (as would nuclear weapons)

I don't believe the Constitution would be "hostile" to the concept if common soldiers are nuclear armed but, as a practical matter, it is pretty much an moot point.

Now when laser "pistols" become practical, I want one(lol)

[xkaydet65]

I would propose that a limit begins with crew served weapons and up.Though Ted Nugent might disagree with me here.