>>31
They did have cannons and artillery weapons. The constitution did nothing to ban the private ownership of these. Nor did it ban the private ownership of warships. Nor did it ban the private ownership of bayonettes. (Seriously Clinton... when was the last time you heard about a bayonetting incident?)
Whether or not the founding fathers could envision future weaponry is arguing a completely different argument than what is being discussed. Perhaps they could and did envision such weaponry. Any man with half a brain could see that man first warred with stones. Then he warred with spears. Then he warred with brass knives. Then he warred with iron swords and bows. Then he warred with cannons, and rifles.
Tell me then, what did the founding fathers believe? That weaponry would remain the same for the next thousand years? No. Of course not. What the founding fathers were arguing for is for an armed citizenry. A citizenry that could have the capabilities to overthrow a corrupt government and protect itself in case an armed militia failed to do so.
Yes, there is gun crime. Most crimes commited using firearms are with illegally procured firearms. To argue the case of gun control in terms of statistics(lies) is entirely beyond the point of the debate. Who cares is gun control is stricter in other countries and they have less gun crime. (Statistics 101, correlation is NOT causation) Who cares if Switzerland has lax laws yet extremely low gun crime (again, correlation is NOT causation). Because these countries are NOT America, and there is no RULE governing what the effects of gun control are. (Despite how either side will lie to you with completely unempirical "definitive statistics and facts" concerning case studies.) {Maybe we can just say nigras can't have guns and gun crime will drop. Okay, as a /b/tard I had to add that in.}
Should we, as law abiding citizens, be allowed to own a firearm to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes? That's my opinion on the subject.