Are There Any Limitations on the "Right to Bear Arms"? Any at all?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. I honestly believe the vague use of the term "arms" was purposefully done to

accommodate changing technology. The concept being that people needing to fight another army should be armed with whatever common weapons a soldier would typically wield. "Well regulated" would have been translated as "well functioning" back in the language of that time. Back then, many private citizens owned ships, cannons, and pretty much whatever the militia/military brought to the playing field.

HOWEVER... I don't believe the forefathers ever thought there could be the kind of indiscriminate or standoff type weapons we have today. I think the 2A would be a little more descriptive if you told Ben Franklin that someday we would have a weapon that harnessed the power of the SUN and a flying machine armed with that single weapon/bomb could leave to destroy England after breakfast and be back before bedtime.

Nevertheless, I do think that "arms" was used purposefully - which beg the question, how much weight can you really give to the technical based opinions someone alive 250 years ago?

Personally, I would draw the line at restricting "indiscriminate weapons"... very much like the 1934 NFA.