Incorrect -- it was indeed a big issue in Revolutionary times to protect the God-given right to own weapons (not to "allow" people to own them -- these rights transcend the government and what it "allows.") Governments of Europe during those times were notorious for infringing on people's natural right to keep and bear arms. The Founders were intent that our governments not infringe upon those rights. And the velidity of the Federalist Papers stems from the fact that they give us a view into our Founders' intent -- which is why originalist Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas refer to them when working to understand a given issue's Constitutionality.
But anyway, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that there IS an appropriate line to draw between weapons you can own, and weapons you can’t own. Which means that Romney’s drawing the line is NOT itself an abrogation of constitional thought, as some pretend
Wrong. The Founders described what they meant by RKBA; weapons such as suitcase nukes do not seem to fall under the Founders' description. But the rights Romney proposes to infringe with the so-called "assault weapons" ban clearly do fall under the Founders' view of rights and arms protected by the second amendment.
You're arguing that because a prohibition against suitcase nukes is not a second amendment infringement, that basically nothing is. I'm arguing that the federalist papers describe the general types/levels of arms the Founders meant when they wrote the second amendment, and that Romney's gun-grabbing proposals very clearly infringe upon those.
It appears to me that you believe our rights as they relate to RKBA are arbitrary and based on what's "appropriate;" I believe the definition of what falls under our natural RKBA are pretty well described in the Federalist Papers.
You’ve completely mischaracterized what I’m arguing. I’m saying that because you draw a line somewhere, it means that drawing a line is not itself disqualifying.
But when this all started, you claimed that because Romney DREW a line, he was disqualified.
What you really are complaining about is simply WHERE he drew the line. But you have offered NO argument as to why where YOU draw the line is correct, and where HE draws the line is incorrect.
The militia, the right to bear arms, the whole topic of guns is covered only a few times in the entire set of the federalist papers. You can keep claiming different, but since the document exists online, you will lose that argument.
Go search for the words “militia” or arms” or “armed” in the online federalist papers, you will find fewer than 10 references that are germaine to our conversation. The issue was important, but not a big subject of contention they had to spend pages on, like some other more controversial topics. As the federalist papers were attempting to convince people to support the constitution, they spent a lot more time on things that were controversial.
Let’s turn it around. What in the constitution or the federalist papers makes you think the founders would ban suitcase nukes, or machine guns?