I wasn't being hyperbolic. I couldn't tell from your post if that was the point you were making. It seemed to me you were arguing that 2A would protect any weapon ever created, but I see I misunderstood. It only protects any arm ever created, you argue. Yet, your definition of arms is rather vague. Is it your definition that you've created, or gleaned from common sense, or is it from a case? Do grenades fit your definition? Shoulder mounted rockets?
How does the number of people who operate a weapon figure into your point? I'm not sure I understand your fourth sentence. Are you saying a ship of the line, a smaller version of a ship of the line, a fighter jet, or some combination of those options requires multiple personel to function? My guess is that you mean all of them, but my grandfather flew F-86's, which as you may know, can be operated by a single person.
Is your claim that the 2A gives (should give?) one the right to own and use any hand held weaponry that will ever be created? A gatling gun, of the sort I'm imagining at least, is not something I would call hand held, more like hand operated. Do you include all hand operated weapons? Only those generally operated by one person? Some states prohibit possessing nunchuks, are those arms?
You seem to have misunderstood me about the framers. I wasn't suggesting that their possible disagreement should have an effect on our interpretation of 2A; I'm not big into original intent. I was just asking whether you thought they all agreed on 2A, because you seemed to refer to them as a single group sharing the same intention.
