In making your point, you are missing THE POINT and the point is that Law should be based on Common sense.
Even you agree that insisting on the right to own automatic weapons and arming the individual states with WMD's flies in the face of reasonable thought.
about two years ago, I came home around 10 at night and was stopped by a shotgun toting neighbor who told me that somebody had robbed the Dairy Queen about a half mile from my house, I didn't have the heart (or the guts) to tell him that I wasn't quite so worried about the jonesing addict who probably left the dairy queen heading straight for a place to score dope and shoot up as I was worried about the hillbilly neighbor waving around a double barrel 12 gauge in the dark.
Not everybody who owns a gun is a criminal by any stretch of the imagination but neither is everybody who owns a gun a reasonable responsible citizen.
Songsmith has a pretty good point about gun laws but It seems reasonable to me that by outlawing these weapons, it'll be a little easier for the police to tell good guys from bad guys, don't ya think? (Only the bad guys and guys in uniforms will have these weapons) it sure would cut down on incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Will that infringe on your right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment? Probably, but since a responsible citizen wouldn't want or need an automatic weapon, anyway, what do you care?
It's like the "Men having babies argument" in "Life Of Brian", Yes, Stan has the right to have babies but since he can't actually have babies what good is protesting?
The counterargument is the government is infringing our rights, where ya gonna draw the line?. IMHO, Automatic weapons are pretty good place. IMHO, my right to not get shot 30 times in the ass overrules your right to own an Uzi
Automatic weapons in the hands of untrained, unregulated personel represents a hazard to public safety and it's time we took a second look at the second amendment
The framers of the Constitution were (in legal thinking terms) products of British Common law. British Common Law is supposed to be based on Common Sense and the needs and the welfare of the community it governs, given that, I don't think it's such a big leap to suggest that had Jefferson and Adams, et al, been able to forsee Uzi's and Ak's on the street I think it's Very reasonable that they would have done something about it.
Like or not, agree with it or not, the United States Constitution is a living, breathing, changing, thing, the framers built in the idea of amendments because they knew that times will and always do change, don't believe me read the following....
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The framers planned for amendmends, they are built in to the process of a Constitutional Governement, and so is repealing them, otherwise let's get rid of the 21st Amendment and take away your beer!
Times have changed since the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, the 2nd Amendment is outdated and requires. .er . .ah Amending
. That statement should read: In principle, the 2nd amendment gives the states the right to maintain nuclear weapons as a balance of power with the Union's military.
