Try to follow the logic. I'm linking arms to guns...because they were discussed with regard to the 2nd Amendment by the authors of the Constitution. At the time...guns = muskets. Had they wanted to consider cannons, I think there would have been some discussion over that. I've never seen anything to suggest they meant anything other than guns. Thus, your picture of a cannon in this thread is misplaced.
Nukes are the biggest strawman argument in gun control ever. I agree with your legal opinion but frankly it does not agree with MadMax's statement here You picked up on my response to him so I think basically we are in agreement.
Except when you see that the reason they wanted an armed population was for protection. Cannons were a huge part of the war and certainly would be needed for any real protection.
Again..find me a statement relevant to the discussions among those who contributed to writing the Bill of Rights connecting cannons to the 2nd Amendment, and you win.
