What don't they understand?
I only own a BB gun, but this issue REALLY boils my blood about the Libs and the joke we have for a "Supreme Court"
You hear the argument a lot -- that if the Second Amendment means what it says then no weapons are prohibited up to and including nuclear weapons, and you don't want that, right? The argument is that the founding fathers would never have allowed semi-automatic or full automatic assault weapons, grenades, bazookas, etc, that they are too destructive in private hands. Well, guess what? The founding fathers would have allowed assault weapons. In Section 8, paragrah 11 they specifically grant Congress the power "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." A "Letter of Marque" was a commission issued by Congress to a privately owned war vessal or "privateer" that allowed it to operate (make war upon the enemy) in the name of the government to distinguish it from a pirate ship operating for profit. Privateers were the weapons of mass destruction of their time. Can you imagine the effect a great sailing ship decked out with 30 or so cannon could make upon a small port city? Yet this destructive force was in the hands of a private person and was authorized as such by the Constitution. So it appears the founding fathers had no problems with massively destructive weapons in private citizens hands. Anyone disagree?