In other words, you have no idea what your answer is, but you are sure that if someone were to read the entire federalist papers and TELL you what they said, that would be your position.
Well, I can tell you the federalist papers are a wealth of good information, but they do not say that Colt 45’s are arms that you have a right to own, and Stinger anti-aircraft missles are not.
Maybe the question is too hard for you, because it requires interpreting rather than simply quoting from something someone else wrote for you.
The constitution clearly allows for some restriction on citizens owning weapons. It is clear you agree with some restrictions, although you are incapable of explaining WHY or where you draw that line.
So your objection to where Romney draws that line is without merit, and therefore meaningless.
Uh, no. It's just clear from your questions that you haven't read the Federalist Papers recently -- the authors state quite clearly what general level of arms is the militia's natural right. Hint: at this point suitcase nukes wouldn't qualify as "arms" the Founders believed we have a natural right to keep and bear. Another hint: many weapons that Romney wants to ban under the AWB *would* qualify as arms the Founders believed we have a natural right to keep and bear. Two final hints: the answer is in one of the Federalist Papers that Madison wrote...and think about why the Founders believed it was so important that our God-given RKBA not be infringed.
Beyond that, if you don't care enough about the full answer to bother reading our Founding documents, I'm not going to spoon-feed it to you. There's no point in arguing about this, as you and I apparently do not share enough common ground on this issue to make such a discussion worthwhile. FReegards.