OK, here's something that occurred to me:
The Second Amendment states that we have the right to keep and bear arms, right?
Note, however, that it doesn't clarify what is designated by "arms." Partly because of that (and partly just because I think it's what should happen), I think that the Second Amendment allows for the legal ownership and carrying of nearly any weapon. Now it would be only slightly more of a stretch to say it allows for the ownership of weapons that can't be carried on one's person, as "bear arms" could probably mean something like "to use." So there is a possibility that means that tactical nukes and other such military weapons capable of mass destruction are not legal according to the Constitution...even though most of our modern weapons weren't around at the time of its writing.
OK, as much as I don't like the governmental intervention in things, it's probably a good idea nukes are illegal and highly guarded (at least some of them), as it would only really be used to blow up lot of people, and of course nuclear weapons have the problem of radioactive fallout.
But anyway, I think it should be fairly apparent that although firearms may have been the main thing the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, the principle behind it is that citizens should be able to be armed to defend themselves. I think that an extension of that would being able to be armed with the most effective weapon or weapons (or whatever weapons you feel like), since even if the Founding Fathers had firearms in mind, firearms were and still are the most effective personal defense weapons. And that includes cannons and other large guns, doesn't it?
Anyway, here's a video on what happens when thugs are determined to do violence and their victims are unarmed and untrained. Let's just ban guns, knives and anything else that can be used as a weapon...oh, wait - your body can be used as a weapon so your hands, feet and entire body should be illegal; your mind is a weapon, so you can't take that with you either (particularly if honed to a sharp edge); but of course, someone with the skills of Jason Bourne can improvise and use just about anything as a weapon.
Is this starting to sound ridiculous? It should.
As it's been said many, many times, "Disarm the citizens and only the lawbreakers will be armed."
Well, enough on this topic for now - I can talk more about gun/knife/etc. control at a later time, since the facts about it are out there and are pretty well-known.
Well, I've got to get to bed now, but I'd like to see any thoughts anyone has to offer.