[Lazamataz]

You have yet to show where the Constitution prohibits ANY weapon or weapons systems, and in the process, your tone is deterioriating. Do you agree that the Constitution provides for privateers? If so, what Constitutionally imposed restrictions are there on what weapons may be deployed.

If you have a Letter of Marquee issued by the Congress, we can talk about what weapons would be permissible.

For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic.

[Eagle Eye]

If you have a Letter of Marquee issued by the Congress, we can talk about what weapons would be permissible.

For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic

They cannot be totally separated. The 2A is not strictly about individual self defense and cannot be argued as if it is solely in that context.

The question is whether or not individuals may own what you term indescriminate weapons. The Constitution makes no distinction making your distinction artificial.

If individuals cannot own weapons and implements of war, then there is no need for letters of marque. However, it seems that the founders contemplated the notion that the federal government might not have all the resources it needed to accomplish the mission, therefore relying on individuals who owned those resources.

The 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without infringement and nothing in the Constitution, except what you invent, places any restrictions on ownership.

Now I might not like my neighbor growing cultures of bacteria, brewing VX, or hoarding plutonium in his garage, but I cannot find where the Constitution prevents it.

But, as I said before, when your 'common sense' restricts some weapons and not others, you open the door to other people like HCI promoting their idea of common sense.