[presidio9]

Neither one of these arguments holds much weight, and we've heard them all before. You need a rifle, even an automatic rifle to ensure that your government can't tyranize you? Fine. After that it gets stupid. There are plenty of nuclear weapons that can be used by a single individual. Learn where the line is appropriately draw, and we will welcome you back to the world of the sane.

[dark_lord]

You are really missing the point of the argument. I am not arguing about whether or not people "need" stinger missiles, or whether it is "sane" that they have them, or anything like that at all. I am merely pointing out that a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, along with the few SCOTUS positions regarding it, would permit it. Get the difference? I think you seem to be arguing from a position of what "should" be, what is "rational", etc. That is a different argument.