[MACVSOG68]

We have the right to own any manner of automatic weapons as long as we don't use them illegaly. The constitution protects that right from infringement by any government in this country. Same with our vocal chords.

Two points. First, using your logic and the definition of arms, any person can own a nuclear device as long as they don't use them illegally. Second, you assume that the government may not impose any restrictions on rights until after a crime has been committed, and to assume that would be to governments do not have the responsibility for maintaining a safe and secure society, which is false.

[Dead Corpse]

The only method for restriction of individual Rights provided for in the Constitution is those as punishment for actual crimes and as a result of a speedy trial of our peers.

Real crimes are those things in which you have caused direct damage to another. Libertarians/objectivists define this under the non-initiation of force, fraud, and theft doctrine. Jefferson and Madison had similar thoughts on the subject, but still adopted a lot of the framework of British common law.

These days, a "crime" is anything the government says it is no matter how stupid, arbitrary, or capricious their intent may be. It could lack any Constitutional authority at all, but... because they have all the big guns and are not afraid to use them, we have to OBEY.

Does that sound like a Republic based off of individual liberty to you?

[smoketree]

Then the constitutin is meaningless.
Whatever laws or restrictions any government can get away with are just fine.
Then we don't need a Supreme Court to determine if any laws are "unconstitutional" because any restrictions are reasonable. Like California passing a law that says bayonet lugs and pistol grips are illegal.
According to your logic the phrase "shall not be infringed" actually means "may infringe where necessary".
I always thought the phrase "shall not" meant what it says shall not, not, may not.