>>32
Sorry to mislead you if it seemed I was attempting to argue that the right to bear arms should be a static definition from the Founding Fathers. My notion is that it is ridiculous to use the Bill of Rights as an explaination as to why someone should be allowed weapons of immense deadliness. Whether that is a correct interpretation or not of what the writers of the Bill of Rights intended is, and should, be up to interpretation for what is necessary to the situation. That said, nobody can, save for a miraculous time rift, correctly ascertain how the Constitution would have provided for our current weaponry.
I personally do not find a need to have an assault rifle as my primary home defense: I have a shotgun and a regular rifle for that. Of course needs vary, but most intruders would get the message to leave when they hear the cocking of either one. Spraying my household with a torrent of bullets probably would do more damage to my personal wealth than someone taking my TV. An artillery cannon would probably do worse, obviously, but I am getting off track to show an example. There is little (in my opinion) need for certain classes of weapons to be in the hands of civilians.
My opinion is (and yes, I am parsing carefully my semantics) that gun control is a ill-advised thing that only allows for greater abuses by those in control. The governments of the world should have a healthy respect and fear of their subjects, as we are the ones who grant them power and authority. I would enjoy a policy of gun moderation; that is, allow people to freely own weapons if they despire, to protect themselves and have for general utility.