Reply #67: The context of the Second Amendment was that "arms" were small...

[SteveM]

While "arms" can mean everything from a .22 to a nuclear-equipped b-52, the Second's context -- especially regarding "...and bear arms" suggests (among other reasons) that the "arm" was designed to be carried and fired from one or both hands; hence, their suitability for militia service. Such weapons as ships, tanks, big guns, airplanes can indeed by owned, they are subject to more strict regulation as these were not contemplated as weapons to be born by individuals who constituted "the people."

I do think that the regulations on sub-machine guns and true assault rifles can be questioned, since these meet the "definition" of arms contemplated in the Second. Intellectually, those who advocate that the Second should include these arms are, imo, on firmer ground than those 2A-defenders who are comfortable with current restrictions, but society and law is not perfect.

Please note that many uprisings against more-powerfully equipped governments/invaders have been successful. Cuba, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam are a few off the top.

Michael Dorn (who played Warf in "Star Trek: The Next Generation") owns and flies a Korean-era Sabre fighter.