Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.
Sorry Gawain - it does apply because it was American Flagged Merchants that were living out of American Ports.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.
They were forced to notice the folly of the legislation because of the action resulting from war. Even though they changed the legislation it does show that the founding fathers had some restrictions on arms. Which goes to the arguement about gun control.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '


So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?
[/quote]

Not at all - nice attempt but that was not what I stated. The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government. One can not adequately demonstrate to me that when the people desire to overthrow the tryanny of the government that the lack of military grade weapons has prevented the overthrow of the government. The are plently examble were inadequate equiped rebels overthrew a government that they no longer could tolerate.