Within the definitions maintained during the time period. To "bear" arms, as in "keep and bear" always meant 'able to be carried':
Often, the following, in this case excerpted from U.S. v. Emerson (see Part V [Second Amendment], C [Text], 1 [Substantive Guarantee], b [Bear Arms]), is used as an attempt to show bearing arms was synonymous with carrying:
Also revealing is a bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed to the Virginia legislature by James Madison (the author of the Second Amendment) on October 31, 1785, that would impose penalties upon those who violated hunting laws if they "shall bear a gun out of his [the violator's] inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty."
This may be limiting, but within the rationale of the day. So, in order to fulfill the definition of 'bear' a weapon needed to be able to be carried, of which, cannon cannot. Further, the dictionary of the day defined ordnance as :
Full Definition of ORDNANCE
1
a: military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
b: a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
2
: cannon, artillery
A web site that I frequent has compiled a rather exhaustive list of support for the 2dA and the RKBA: Guncite on 2d A
The anti-gunners attempted to interpret "bear arms" to mean something like "to participate in armed combat". They were trying to tie Militia service to the Second Amendment protection. The courts were required then to clarify that to "bear arms" means to carry them.
I don't agree that only arms which may be carried by a single person are those protected.
I have always appreciated the following:
"A well-educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Does this mean only voters can keep and read books? Does this mean only people who can read are allowed to keep books. Does this mean that libraries can be banned because libraries are not people? Does this mean that people are allowed to read books but are not allowed to write them? May newspapers be banned because they are not books? Can the government require that you read a book before you can keep it? Would the government be justified in limiting how many books one may read or keep? Are there books which are just so dangerous that government may ban them?
What can possibly justify different answers to the above questions when it involves "arms" and not "books"?
Although the above questions may seem rather frivolous, I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Here it is a felony to put a three-ounce plastic pistol grip on an otherwise legal rifle.