[OCCASparky]

Problem is, the Second Amendment states "well-armed militia", not firearms, although I rather doubt you'd have a guy in a tricorner hat back in 1790 with a few cannon in his garage.

Muskets yes, howitzers no.

Today's pro-2nd folks need to understand there is a limit on what the average citizen needs or wants in order to defend themselves not just from the criminal element but, (now we're getting to the touchy part) from a tyrannical government.

Jefferson said a little revolution every now and then was a good thing, but I don't think the MEANS of revolution has to necessarily be violent. First at the ballot, and when that doesn't work, THEN use the bullet.

[smoketree]

Muskets yes. Cannon yes. Those that could afford cannon had cannon. Some even had fully armed warships and were granted letters of marque and reprisal.
The amendment states “well regulated militia”, “not well armed militia”.
Back then well regulated meant well functioning. They did not want citizens showing up for militia duty with unworkable arms.
And it is not a bill of needs or wants it is a bill of RIGHTS.

[joe fonebone]

like i have always said, in any situation there are 3 types of action to action to take, positive, legal and lever...first is positive action, talk to the people and try to work it out...if that fails, then there is legal action...get a cop, attorney, judge or work at the ballot box to get it handled...if that fails, then there is lever action on the old 30.30.......

[Doug Loss]

You’re just wrong on this. Most of the artillery used by the Continental Army during the Revolution was loaned to it by private owners and was returned to them after the cessation of hostilities. And the term is “well-regulated militia.” “Militia” was defined by Jefferson as all free-born males in the population between the ages of 15 and 60 (as I recall). “Well-regulated” was a generally understood term that meant knowledgeable and skilled in the use of whatever was appropriate to the “well-regulatedness.” In this case, it would mean knowing how to use firearms properly and being able to hit what you fire at.

[ctdonath2]

What part of “arms” and “shall not be infringed” are you confused about?

“Arms” were described by a Founding Father as “ALL the terrible implements of the soldier”.

“Shall not be infringed” should be pretty clear.

Crew-served arms were not uncommon and not absurd for private ownership.

The Founding Fathers intended that the aggregate of common citizens should be self-armed to the point of being entirely effective - and that means some people (pooling funds or just rich) would acquire crew-served arms on their own.

No, sir, there is no limit on what the average citizen needs or wants for defense from any viable threat - save only those arms which, inherently, threaten far more innocents than enemies (to wit: WMDs).

There’s nothing magic about machineguns. And yes, you can own a howitzer TODAY if you have the money and can find a seller (or make one yourself), plus a little paperwork.

[Dead Corpse]

1. Soap box
2. Ballot Box
3. Jury Box
4. Cartridge Box

For those not keeping score on where we are at on the "Box" count. This IS the chance we have all been waiting for. If the system screws us here, there is only one recourse left that will be in any way effective...

[GladesGuru]

“Problem is, the Second Amendment states “well-armed militia”, not firearms, although I rather doubt you’d have a guy in a tricorner hat back in 1790 with a few cannon in his garage.”

As a matter of well recorded fact, large land owners often owned cannon which they kept to protect their property from Indians.

Those cannon were the equivalent of today’s “crew served weapons” like cannon and howitzers.

Might I also note that the ownership of tanks is legal, including the cannon and machine guns. Of course, the gubment does collect taxes on such play toys. Think $200 for each machine gun and $400 for the cannon.

Hope some BATF idiot child doesn’t try to tax each shell for the cannon.

[El Gato]

Problem is, the Second Amendment states "well-armed militia", not firearms, although I rather doubt you'd have a guy in a tricorner hat back in 1790 with a few cannon in his garage.

Muskets yes, howitzers no.

I don't doubt it, I know they had them. While they didn't have garages, they had ships, and some of those privately armed ships mounted cannon. When issued a letter of Marque, they became lawful Privateers, which were used against the British in both the Revolution and the War of 1812.

It was three privately owned cannon that the British were after that April 19th of 1775. They didn't find them BTW, but hiding them took them off their carriages (which were found and burnt) and out of action, otherwise probably not a single Regular would have made it back to Boston. It was a similar cannon brought up later by the Regulars that prevented the militia from concentrating against the Regulars on the Battle Road back down to Boston.

We have a United States, rather than A British North American Colony, in no small part because there were privately owned cannon.

There was an attempt to confiscate a locally owned cannon involved in the Texas Revolution of 1835 as well. A representation of it was put on a flag.

[Inyo-Mono]

Privately owned cannons were commonly used on the Frontier as protection against Indians. They were found in forts (my ancestors in 1757 had one in their fort), keel boats, and trading posts.