I'm really not sure how your condescending rant has anything do to with my questioning your statement that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own bazookas and SAMs.
Is there a point to your ramblings that actually reflect my attitudes, I think not.
I'm not against the 2nd amendment, which I think you think I am. I didn't allude to a desire to change the constitution. Should I thank you for the unnecessary civics lesson, I think not.
I stand by my statement that when the 2nd amendment was written the definition of "arms" is much different than what is it today. I also think the ATF would disagree with you as well,
Here's a piece of friendly advice back to you; oh, I don't have any, I'm not your friend.
Most of the information is for the kids reading these posts, not for you. The information I was giving you wasn't a lesson in civics, it was a lesson in natural rights. Since you are obviously ignorant of this, I'll inform you that Civics replaced Natural Rights as a part of the core curriculum in the 1800's and after a lot of research I believe that this change is one of the main reasons that the founding principles of this country have become thrown out.
We don't have to be friends, neighbor, it's a free country.
As a practical matter, the founders would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government making the purchase or acquisition of anything illegal. Even Hamilton would wonder what business it is of the the government what I purchase with my money.
I consider taking the perspective of the founding fathers to be a red herring on the modern understanding of constitutional law.
Here is why:
1. The founding fathers are dead and therefore not around to make their real opinion known and there is no one alive today that can remember them. This creates an implicit understanding of the constitution because there are no primary sources.
2. Historical documents are what was written down, not necessarily what actually was, tainted by their bias and possible exclusions. This creates an implicit understanding of the constitution because the writers of the documents aren't around to interpret them properly.
3. The idea of a living constitution comes from the lawyers and historians that try to interpret the writings of the constitution so that new regimes can exploit cultural ignorance(media) so that they can gain more power. In this way the constitution is subverted, as a legal document it should be explicitly read, because one of the defining qualities of a constitution is that it is an explicit document and cannot therefore be read honorably with an implicit interpretation. Constitutions are written knowing full well that they are explicit documents. Please look up the meanings of implicit and explicit if you don't know them, it will be painfully obvious if you respond without knowing this.
A living constitution is subversive and not law.