The Feds have the right to regulate the sale and manufacture of firearms... and they can do so as long as it does NOT violate the Second Amendment. There are also Federal limitations on Free Speech... it is “regulated” to a degree. CFR is a prime example! You are also pitifully unaware that Federal Law allows for private ownership of some of those very weapons that you try so unsuccessfully to use in your erroneous argument. There are events held for charity where an average Joe can go and shoot these 50 cal Machine Guns... M-60 machine guns... and other military weapons... ALL legally owned by holders of a Class Three Firearms License. I know a guy that owns an old Sherman Tank too. Like I said... you lose and so will mitt!
LLS
So, I lost the argument. And how did I lose it? By getting you to admit that not only does the government regulate many firearms, and restrict their ownership, but that you agree with me that the government has a RIGHT to pass restrictions on firearms.
The only issue between you and Mitt is in how far each of you would accept restrictions on the ownership of firearms.
Which was my point. So I’ll be happy to accept “losing”, since losing here is defined as you conceding my point.