[isthisnickcool]

The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.

Here is another thought. Does anyone think we would have and easier time with slavery in the US if the slaves were able to arm themselves?

[xkaydet65]

Spot on. In 1789 the deadliest military firearms were found incivilian hands from Maine to the NatchezTrace. In the 1860s and 1870s wagon trains and cattle drovers had more firepower than cavalry troops. Even artillery found its legal way into civilian hands on keel boats, in trading posts and private forts, and every Yankee and Baltimore trade on the seas.

[ThunderSleeps]

Exactly. The Bill of Rights does not say what an individual may or may not do. It specifically says what the government may not do. In order for people to remain free the government may not interfere with free speech, religion, firearms, etc. etc.

Whether or not I "need" any particular firearm or not is entirely beside the point. What I absolutely need in order to remain free is the freedom to own (or not) a firearm if I choose. The moment we give that (or any other freedoms) up we have tyranny. Not tyranny sometime in the future if/when the government does something and we cannot protect ourselves. No, we have tyranny right here, right now if and when we surrender our freedoms.

Molon Labe