[DAnconia55]

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.

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.

[joesbucks]

I see nowhere in the Constitution the term Infantry Weapon, nor any words that refer to single man or crew serviced. Now there may have been debate recorded in the Federalist Papers or other such historical notation of intent, but remember, at that time, the infantry was about all the fighting they were up against. The purpose of the second admendment was to allow the citizens the opportunity to defend against an enemy whether from afar or it's own government with like and similar weapons. We know some of the weapon power the US government has and for that matter many foreign nations. Our government has in its possession WMD's as well as other advanced weapons. If we cannot fight back with like weapons, then we've lost and should our government turn on us, we cannot effectively fight back (or be ala Iraq where a soldier or two per day is picked off by sniper fire). I don't believe the intent of the founding fathers was for us not to have like weapons.