So what? People who own sea-going ships can still own cannons. I know a guy who has a tank. John Travolta owns a Korean War fighter.
There were no restrictions.
Yes,there were. To own and sail a "war vessel" required a "letter of Marquis". Maybe this is "picking nits" because it's a hollow arguement on both our parts. Nobody who wasn't going into piracy bothered to arm their vessels with cannons because they were both expensive and dangerous,and the ones who did get involved in piracy were treated rather harshly. The fact that any citizen without a criminal record who has the financial resources CAN own a tank or aircraft with functional large caliber weapons is also irrelevant. Damn few people want to own them,and there is no possible way to buy one illegally in this country.
BTW,PLEASE note that there are no restrictions today on buying or possessing a black powder cannon. You can even buy blueprints or kits to build your own.
The idea that the Second Amendment includes a limitation on the type of arms which may be owned is a new idea invented by those who are not willing to amend the Constitution to outlaw nuclear weapons.
HorseHillary! It is clear to anyone who has done much reading of the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers that this was discussed in a genaral sense,and it was commonly accepted by the people who wrote the US Constitution and insisted on the Bill of Rights that INDIVIDUALS had a CLEAR right to own INDIVIDUAL weapons so they could be called on in time of need to form a active militia,and that the towns and states were assumed to be the ones to own and control the "crew-served weapons" of the day. The obvious reasons for this is nobody is going to carry a howitzer or other field piece around slung over their shoulder,and towns,counties,and states were/are better equipped to stand the financial burden of buying,storing,and caring for these weapons,as well as offering a central storage location for the militia to rally to in order to field these weapons. Cannons kept in a barn on private property that nobody knows about aren't of much use in fighting a enemy with.
All this is extra,though. The CLEAR intent of the 2nd Amendment is to insure the individual citizen have access to the same individual weapons as the individual federal or other army soldier.
Letters of Marque and Reprisal are authority to act. They did not come with weapons or any unneeded authority to obtain weapons.
The legality of black-powder cannons is irrelevant. Sea-going warfare today requires guns capable of penetrating significant armor. There was no intention to deny this to the people of the United States.
Please offer as an indication of our Founder's intent, any prohibition of a specific weapon of war prior to 1939.
I can't find the quote this morning, but at the time of our founding, it was said (paraphrasing) that we would not have to fear tyranny because "Americans are equipped with every terrible instrument of war".
If our Founders had meant for people to only be armed with muskets and black-powder cannons, they could have said so.