In Webster's English (The Founders' Second Amendment)

roanoke.com ^ | June 03, 2008 | Stephen P. Halbrook

[Wonder Warthog]

"Nope, this would be useless were I granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal."

Wrong. Letter of Marque and Reprisal were for legalization of privateers (essentially "high seas militia"). ALL merchant ships of the day were armed to some degree, for the repelling of pirates (self-defense), and they didn't need government permission to be so armed---what they could afford, they could have.

[TC Rider]

Until the early 1970s, most dictionaries and encyclopedias had the same definitions and explanations.

The media has allowed the Left to steal the language.

[DBrow]

That's my point. The second amendment cannot be interpreted in a way that restricts my ownership of arms. If it did, then I'd need special permission to own cannons and fighter planes, which I don't need.

The second amendment does not restrict me to hand-carried or crew-served arms, or for that matter, does not restrict my choice of armor.

[blackie]

Never give up!!

[G.Mason]

I'd rather go down fighting that ever give up.

Afraid we may get our chance to water the Tree of Liberty very soon.

At 67, I never thought I would see my/our enemies take over this once great nation.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

[blackie]

I agree 100%!!

I have a few years on you ~ I’m 77.