Replies

A cannon is not an "arm" or "armament" - it is artillery. That distinction was clear at the founding. Besides, carrying around a cannon is impractical and expensive anyway without teams of men and hardware to transport and thus legislating them out of the hands of the individual was unnecessary. The founders understood that an "arm" was a rifle, pistol, sword, or other personal weapon used by an individual militiaman or soldier. Biden is a dangerous idiot.

FJB!

Wrong. In the debates, the Founder specifically mentioned a civilian right to cannons. Even grenades were mentioned. “How else would the merchentmen be armed for service under letter of marque and reprisal...” kind of stuff.

Read through Elliot’s Debates of the First and Second Congress.

We have a right to own and keep weapons. All kinds of them. Anything the .gov has, we were supposed to have.

Then again, civilian militia were to take a MUCH larger role in National defense than we currently do as well.

The founders understood that an "arm" was a rifle, pistol, sword, or other personal weapon used by an individual militiaman or soldier.

Nonsense.

People had personal cannons. They mounted them on ships and placed them in private fortifications that would have the media in meltdowns over "armed compounds" today.

Don't forget about those guys called pirates. The US did not have much of a navy. Almost all vessels were in the hands of citizens. Privateers were the legal pirate hunters- and they had cannons too.

https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2013/06/03/the-war-of-1812-privateers-plunder-profiteering/

A cannon is not an "arm" or "armament" - it is artillery. That distinction was clear at the founding. Besides, carrying around a cannon is impractical and expensive anyway without teams of men and hardware to transport and thus legislating them out of the hands of the individual was unnecessary. The founders understood that an "arm" was a rifle, pistol, sword, or other personal weapon used by an individual militiaman or soldier. Biden is a dangerous idiot.

Statements like that are a "dangerous idiot". Arms have never been defined as solely individually operated personal weapons. Did the Strategic ARMS Reduction Treaty dictate that Russia and these US could only own up to a million M16s/AK47s? Did the Founders not worry about "artillery" because no merchant owned cannon on his ships?

Artillery (and nukes) are armament, by definition. Your slippery slope can easily limit weapons - where is the clear, distinct line between "arms" and "not-arms"? What is a 240B? Those usually operate with a crew - Gunner, AG, and often an additional ammo bearer. Yet a single person can easily operate the weapon system. You say artillery is a no-no, but what about a 230/320 (grenade launcher)? Javelin? M72 or AT4? 60mm Mortars? All of those systems are designed for, or function fine with, a single operator. Do any/some/all of them count as "arms"?