[spookadelic]

Just throwing this out there...
The right to bear arms... could be interpreted as covering only the arms that are normaly carried.

[ctdonath2]

That argument keeps popping up, and keeps getting knocked down.

The Founding Fathers made it very clear, both in law and in commentary, that absolutely no limitation thereon was intended. Note that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but says nothing indicating any limitations.

Remember, it was written by guys who owned working cannons decorating their front lawns - and used them to eject tyrants.

[DBrow]

There is nothing about additional rights or regulations in the section about Marque and Reprisal.

I think they assumed you'd go get what was needed.

It does seem odd by today's policed and monitored world, with standing armies and a huge Federal government, that people would need access to heavy weaponry, but if you look at what people actually did back then, it was not considered odd or unusual. Like "privateers", or even some communities. Lots of old towns still have powderhouses, though the eight pounder in the commons is filled with concrete these days.

[Dead Corpse]

Except for the quotes from the Founders saying "every terrible implement of the soldier is be every Americans birthright".