So you are OK if I have a bio warfare lab in my basement producing anthrax powder? Or if I have a nuclear warhead? Or a rocket launcher? Or a m-60? All those things are weapons. Are they all fine for me and everyone else to have?

Oooh! Ooohhh!!! I want to be able to carry a pocket nuke for personal protection! Cool!

We are talking about guns. You took "weapon" out of context and you know it. There is no need to twist what I say.
I know someone with an M-60... there would be no way to rob a bank with it, trust me on that.

You can buy large weapons on the black market, I know. Tell me why they are not used in crimes, if this is your fear.

You could mount it on a Hummer and smash into the lobby with it.

I imagine the lack of concealability is why you don't see a lot of LAWS rockets being used in gas station robberies. Well, that, and they're incredibly expensive. Your average crimes are committed by people who want a relatively small and accessible amount of cash, so it isn't really cost effective to use tactical weapons in your average crime.

And you would destroy what you are trying to steal... think a little.

Do "arms" in the First Amendment only refer to personal firearms?

I'd think there was personal ownership of larger weapons, like cannon, at the time, but what would the early US government's views be on personal ownership of, say, a fully armed warship?

I think it refers to personal arms. Not just personal firearms, but not large military grade weapons like bio, nukes, dirty weapons, armored mobile cannons/tanks, personnel carriers, etc.
So, if you want to own an 50cal, which some of my friends and family do, no sweat, anyone who is not a violent felon who wants to conceal carry a firearm from state to state, no sweat. I have no problem with a cannon. They are very impractical for anything but a compound, something I think someone has the right to have. Our family will have one soon... well, this branch.
Also, it is no one's damn business how many fucking rounds I own or if I self pack or not.

Anthrax powder is different from guns. It's not able to be controlled, only contained. A gun, whether .17 caliber or 6-inch, is a mechanism that must be operated.

The government has the right to ban anthrax powder because it's not a basic human right to spread disease.

I think it refers to rolls of toilet paper!:p

But how do you make the distinction? Anything you can carry? Anything that can be operated by one or two people? Why not a personnel carrier? It's just a truck with armor and a couple of 50cals, right? (I didn't look that up, but substitute actual armament)

Actually, I'll drop all my gun issues if you agree that the only guns to be possessed by citizens will be of the technology available in 1789.

I think it'd be terrible if the citizens of the US didn't have the right to bear arms. Imagine all the handicapped parking spaces you'd need.

Nothing wrong with that. For examples on good reasons on governmental control of energy distribution please see: rolling blackouts in So.Cal., regional blackout in the NE, and corroded pipeline in Alaska.

As long as that is what all cops and military get too, fine.