“So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700s with today?”
Oooh, I have to take a swing at that one.
The entire Bill of Rights dates back to the late 1700s.
If the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete because of time, what else is?
Do you feel that freedom of speech and the press are obsolete? After all, words have incited far more carnage through the ages than firearms.
How about the ban against laws prohibiting the free exercise religion? After all, if it wasn’t for those Islamic wackos, we would not be at war right now. Religion has caused more death and wars than any amount of firearms.
Is the need for an indictment by a grand jury as a prequisite for a criminal charge being filed obsolete? After all, that is merely a late 17th-century concept that makes it harder to put criminals behind bars.
Ditto the right against self-incrimination. The *only* people that benefits are the guilty.
Trial by jury is so expensive. What justification can we use to continue that, given modern realities? Think how its abolition would streamline judiciary procedings.
I could go on, but my point remains — if age alone makes one right obsolete, why doesn’t age put them all at risk?
Just in case you desire to flame me once again. Take note that I have not said I want a law banning this weapon. You may assume what you will from my comments, but I never stated I wanted the Feds to pass a law regarding gun ownership. I only stated I, personally, would not have a problem with this weapon not being in the hands of civilians. Now, interpret that as you will.