[andyfox]

Wouldn't the amendmend, in today's language, read:

Being that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

or

Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A militia with its members possessing thermonuclear devices wouldn't qualify as being "well regulated." And it's evident that a well regulated militia can exist without thermonuclear devices. Again, why wouldn't the framers have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is they hadn't intended it to be related to the requirements of a well regulated militia?

I agree with you that the framers did indeed intend for each state to have a well regulated militia. It's also likely that the they would have had no objection to a citizen having a cannon. Then again, their ideas of 'cruel and unusual" punishment were probably very different from ours.