From what I understand, the right to bear arms was inclusive of nearly any weapon. There were interesting discussions (at the time) with regards to whether the

From what I understand, the right to bear arms was inclusive of nearly any weapon. There were interesting discussions (at the time) with regards to whether the 2nd Amendment included the right to bear warship, cannon, or repeating rifles. They concluded that it did. Furthermore, I don't understand why the ease (or lack thereof) of a militia (the present day equivalent for which may be a State Guard) to overtake or resist the (exponentially larger) Federal government has any bearing on our rights. You wouldn't use this sort of argument anywhere else.