You really are a little man, aren’t you? No room in your world for opposing opinions?
Not once did I indicate that I subscribe to a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, merely that I believe ordnance was not included and that the FF’s were quite knowledgeable in their ommission. Machine guns are ‘arms’ as are .50 cal sniper rifles. All of which I have fired while on active duty as an officer of Marines.
Have you sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I have! I have flown in combat over lands that did not have a Constitution, let alone a 2nd Amendment codifying the right to keep and bear arms. Those people, whose villages I saw set ablaze died because of it.
You attempt to inject into the discussion pedantic distinctions that never were included. Learn to read.
There's room for opposing opinions. But you don't get to have your own set of facts.
Your sentence that I highlighted in this post is very clearly self-contradictory. This is similar to what anti-gunners claimed about "people" in the Second Amendment; that it only includes members of an organized Militia.
Perhaps you might at least recognize that my "opinion" of the Second Amendment is completely consistent with the claim that you are limiting the scope of the protection.
My bottom line is that there is no practical limit to the weapons I would use to protect myself, my family, my community, or my nation. Infringing my right to keep or bear such weapons simply makes it more difficult. It's very similar to the situation the Founders were addressing with the Second Amendment. It shouldn't be necessary for me to steal weapons from my enemies or from anyone else in order to protect myself from such enemies.