Start by repealing the 2nd amendment.... and good luck with that. In the US we have over 300 million firearms and over a trillion rounds of ammunition in the hands of responsible gun owners. If we were the problem, you'd know it! Blame the individual NOT the implement.
To defend the inherent rights of life and self defense, as well as to defend the US Constitution from Marxist assault. Actually, the presence of guns in hands other than a criminal's INCREASES public safety. That's what being able to defend oneself does... NOT being able to defend oneself is what DECREASES safety. Nobody on either side of the debate is attempting (purposely, anyway...) to make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms... The issue is that the gun control side is attempting to make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, infringing upon ones 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Why shouldn't they, so long as they are ready to safely handle the responsibility? Children have the inherent right to life and self defense as well... As far as is necessary to get Marxists to stop their assault on the US Constitution and people's inherent rights...
You are more or less correct... Although, a cannon would not be included as an "arm" (as it is actually artillery). Even if one did accept that a cannon would be an arm, a cannon would not be very practical to use for self defense purposes. People would instead make use of other options. I suggest that you open up the 2nd Amendment and read it... It does not in any way restrict the right to keep and bear arms by type of ammunition used, the type of action it has, the rate of fire, etc. etc...
To be fair to anti-gunners, I don't think that they purposely WANT to arm criminals, but yes, the end result of their policy ideas (whether they realize it or not) IS that criminals will still be armed but law abiding citizens will not be, thus effectively arming criminals.
Yup... and even repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't take away people's rights to life and self defense. Those rights are inherent... No government has access to them. People will still defend themselves.
There is no endgame. If gun grabbers were ever successful and in fact eliminated the private ownership of firearms they would simply move to infringe upon a different enumerated right. Guns obviously have to be the first to go, they know an armed populace will never accept the tyranny they want to install...
And yet the marque and reprisal clause contemplates a citizenry so well armed as to only need permission to attack enemy shipping on the high seas. Note: Not permission to ARM UP to do so, mere permission to ATTACK. Read any libel (admiralty law cases are called libels. Fun fact) they list the value of the ships and that includes arms carried. Innocent merchant ships just SOCMOB (standing on corner minding own business)? Armed with cannons. And yet they are not privateers. They hold no letter of marque, no reprisal. Cannons are covered.
