Ah, so it's ok for me to cede points to you, but you won't dare do the same in return, is that it? I should have known, I guess. Willingness to debate only goes so far as I see your point, but not the other way around.
Ivan....I like Ivan better, hope you don't mind.... I do not see where the counterpoint was made. Not in your case, but in the counterparty. Sometimes salvos are fired in preparation for the full volley. Just sayin.
I don't know what I'm supposed to cede. Originally the constitution protected the rights of citizens to own all arms, including guns. Now the right is restricted to only some guns. Edit: in my opinion, I'm not an expert in this field.
I don't mind Ivan if you prefer that moniker. I was arguing that the Constitution has two real interpretations for arms- one on the state level (in terms of a militia) and one on the personal level, where "arms" is obviously meant to be "guns" or "firearms". bigarrow pointed out that this could be cannons and warships, etc. I responded that that could be on the militia level, yes, but there's no way the founders would mean "arms" for individuals meant military machinery of any sort. bigarrow provided a source that detailed how privateers had been used in wars or other military engagements (was an interesting read). These privateers were singular owners of ships and other large scale objects (armed as such, incidentally to protect themselves from pirates, etc) and were hired to supplement military engagements accordingly. My sole point was the Forefather's intent of the word "arms" in usage to generally mean "guns" on the individual level.