I'll throw bsam a bone : I think there should be no limit to the weaponry that you can legally own. As a matter of fact some luxury yachts are known to have the option of torpedo or not. Myself I think a modified ZSU-23-4 mounted on deck would be kinda nice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4 instead (more effective too). I guarantee no pirates would screw with you (well not for long). now if price were no object I'd go for a "vulcan" I've seen these things fire in the field at night and the tracer rounds look like a red firehose to target http://www.rtbot.net/M61_Vulcan
Because they wanted the states to have the ability to raise civilian militias, which had formed the backbone of the army of the day. This neccessity in the early Republic has clearly been superceded by a standing national army. However, the 2nd amendment still exists and under a constitutional Republic, we must continue to recognize this right. However, it is silly to contend that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd amendment to primarily preserve a personal right to own guns for thier personal reasons. You may not agree with my interpretation of the 2nd amendment but if we do agree then this original intent of the amendment has been rendered obsolete by the America's standing armed forces. The constitution in its original articles declared its purpose, one among many, as providing for the safety and welfare of the people. One can argue that guns help provide safety for some, and one can argue they help threaten the welfare of others. As firearm technology advances so should common sense. The "right to bear arms" in 1789 meant a rifle that could be shot once per minute, or a single shot pistol with an accuracy of 10 feet. No one lugged around a cannon back then, or worried about it. But arms today are diffferent, are compact, extraordinarily effective, have very different capabilities, and include non ballistic weapons of varying kill radii: grenades, bombs, chemical weapons, and ballistic arms like fully automatic magazine loading assualt rifles designed for warfare. We can argue all day that people kill people not guns, but a killer with a 1789 firearm is a lot less dangerous than a killer with an modern assault rifle. And if limiting a killer to a personal defense weapon means relinquishing my right to own an assault rifle, I would have to consider that proposal seriously
Why is that silly? A well trained militiaman could fire three rounds per minute and a even a black powder pistol is accurate beyond more than just 10 feet. If you're going to exaggerate in an attempt to make your point you'll need to do a better job of it in the future. My now dead uncle owned a cannon just 10 years ago. And THAT is the problem, you can't simply put pen to paper an expect "killers" to limit themselves to anything. They don't respect the law. If they did they wouldn't be killers in the first place.
Your wrong. Suggested Reading: "The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the Right to Bear Armss. by Stephen P. Halbrook.
=========== Thanks for your question, Brass ; NO NOT really because Drunk Drivers make it much m,uch easier. My Mom Is a wise member of MADD. She is a good target shooter; Oh did you get that ?????My mom is a shooter [of metal/paper targets.}