Preaching to the Choir

[stanc]

Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?

Neither, actually. I was quite specific. I posed a question, to be answered by anyone who cares to do so.

If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.

The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:

One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.

Second Militia Act of 1792 required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 to have a musket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Ac...ct_of_1792

While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess.

Except my question is not about what weapons an individual militia member was expected to possess by the Militia Act, but what weapons an individual is allowed to possess according to the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Since all of those weapons listed in my previous post (with the possible exception of ICBMs and nukes) are suitable arms for equipping a modern militia force, it logically follows that -- if military-type rifles should be available to the public, without background checks or other 2A infringements -- then the noted weapons should be, too.

But, how many folks would really want hand grenades and Claymore mines (let alone any of the more advanced weapons) to be freely and widely available to anyone with the $$ to buy them?