Then please, show me where in the constitution it says "guns". Or for that matter where it says I can't have Weapons of Mass Destruction. All it mentions is a right to bare arms and a well regulated mititia. Haven't yet found the word guns, or star chucks, or dirty bombs or hand grenades or any such distinction, yet some people say the constitution guarantees the right carry a few of these items, while in the same breath they say that certain others can be legislated out my or others reach. I guess they imply there's some sort of inference as to what arms I can bare and those I can't. Maybe that's where the privacy argument comes in. An inference? A God given right?
It is interesting to see how ten different people see thing in ten different ways.
Some is due to ignorance, but after arguing a few issues the past couple of days, I find a lack of reasoning that apparently blinds well meaning people to the facts before them.
Then again, I may be totally full of crap!
Quite clearly the Constitution authorizes the government to fight atomic wars with other nations by hiring private citizens who own nukes.
Pretty farsighted of the Founding Fathers eh?!
One can reasonably infer that the Founders intended us to have EVERY infantry weapon. The quotations of the founders made it clear.
If it's single man operated, and not a crew serviced weapon, then we are Constitutionally allowed to own it. (Regardless of what the law says.)
That is the MINIMAL standard that can be rationally argued for the limitation of the second amendment. Any argument less than this one, has no merit.
That said, there's a moral argument that goes beyond the Constitution but we'll skip it.