[Retric]

Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible.

But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

[ndriscoll]

The point about cannons and warships actually makes it very clear about what the authors' intent was re: balance of risk; at the time, private ownership of artillery was completely legal and unregulated. Private citizens owned warships with dozens of live cannons that could bombard coastal cities, and didn't even need to file paperwork to do so! A warship can cause quite a bit more mayhem than a glock.

[Retric]

Legal yes, protected by the constitution without constraint no.

Both the use of Arms being man portable weapons and militia makes a very clear distinction.

[kube-system]

> Firearms was used rather than weapons

Where? The constitution says neither. It says "Arms"

Regardless, the constitution specifically makes reference to the private ownership of cannons and warships.

> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[Retric]

Arms at the time meant man portable weapons as distinct from cannons or trebuchet etc.

Just posted about firearms so many times used the wrong word here.

[bluGill]

Cannons were regularly privately owned at the time

[Retric]

For sake of argument I’ll agree, but again by explicitly using arms here they where excluding them from constitutional protection not banning them.