Originally Posted by BlueTrain
While I doubt there were many cannon parked in people's carriage houses during the 1780s and 1790s, it is true there were armed merchantmen (commercial sailing ships) at the time. Here the sticking point is that the owners of those ships had to obtain letters to permit them to act as privateers or, private warships. That system was also in place in other countries at the time. Such licenses only authorized the holders to attack only ships of certain other countries that we happened to be at war with. The lack of such a license essentially made them pirates.
The unauthorized USE of their ships against unauthorized
targets made them pirates.
The OWNERSHIP did not and the use of which for any ordinary purpose, such as proficiency training or BOOM! Wow that was fun!, did not.
If the second amendment were replaced with a rewritten amendment, how do you think it should read?
Being that a free people should indeed be free, the right of the people to keep and bear the arms of their choosing will not be infringed, questioned or restricted.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.