“There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
And the definition of arms is, see tag line.
I doubt very much that our Founders intended limits on the type of arms being kept or borne. The militia groups were sent to Fort Ticonderoga to take cannons from the fort by force and bring them to Boston in order to end the occupation of that city after the "shot heard round the world".
Why would the Founders purposely outlaw the very items that they were forced to take by force from their tyrannical government in the first days of the American Revolution?
The word "arms" has a very broad meaning and most recently was used in the term "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty", dealing with nuclear weapons. I know of no limit envisioned by our Founders in what constituted "arms".
Yes. By “arms” in the Second Amendment, our founding fathers obviously intended for Americans in peacetime to keep and bear what most infantryman would have: basic rifles, ammunition, suitable clothing, etc.
Heavier weapons were secured by those few who were responsible for securing them in suitable places. I suspect those who want to inject nuclear weapons and/or other artillery into the topic. Such commenters are apparently trying to contrive visions of insane/moronic/evil neighbors aiming contemporary artillery at other neighbors. Early Americans had enough common sense to keep weapons from such incompetents (insane/moronic/evil). For example, sodomites of the effete were executed by hanging.