However, I am sure that 2+ CENTURIES ago the authors of the Second Amendment had no idea of modern warfare and the highly sophisticated weapons that have been invented since that "article" was written. Thus it is entirely reasonable to regulate and if necessary restrict the sale and use of certain military weapons which in the hands of "bad" guys can lead to mass killings, a fact which is obvious today but did not exist in the days of single shot black powder rifles.
I find it entirely logical that, in view of the fire power of gangs have created the perceived need by police to arm themselves with weapons of equal or greater power. I am not in favor of this entire trend, but as long as criminals can have easy access to "specialized weapons of war" with 30 round clips, law enforcement will feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on heavy armaments.
IMO, the only way to reduce this weapons race between criminals and law enforcement is to restrict "availability" of military type weapons. The public has plenty choice left of selecting appropriate weapons for sport or hunting.
IMO, the need for regulation of certain weapons is needed. I live in No Idaho and everyone I know goes hunting for winter meat, but no one I know uses military type guns, which would not bring down a big Elk or Moose or, if necessary a Grizzly bear, unless 3 or 4 guys pump 100 bullets in such "big game".
But we also have a large number of "survivalist" and "neo-nazis", who are counting on a type of Armageddon and are intentionally stocking armaments for an invasion of foreign armies, or even in the hope of one day gaining enough military power to overthrow the government.
This worries me a great deal.
Where does the Second Amendment stop? I am willing to speculate that if the authors had any idea what those simple words "right to bear arms" would, two centuries later, be interpreted that anyone can buy any weapon they like from any gunstore or gun-show. I am certain that was not the intent of the Second Amendment, which does qualify the right to bear arms with the second sentence "a well regulated militia" being necessary. IMO there have to be regulations and restrictions placed on certain weapons, which have no other use than mass killing.
