Wow, much more concise.
I suppose I am most worried that future generations could distort the original intent. For instance, "Congress shall make no law" does not exclude local jurisdictions from making laws against it.
I do feel that individuals ought not to have access to weapons of mass destruction, on the basis that a nuke (for example) is completely useless against a car jacking or home invasion, and the potential for disasterous misuse is too great.If it were legal for every citizen to own WMD, all an enemy state would have to do is get a citizen to buy one and use it. However, a well regulated militia
of the people should have access to any and all technology, including WMD that could aid in the defense of the State.
It's a line in the sand, I know.The gov. determined that RKBA doesn't extend to newly manufactured machine guns. I (along with many other gun enthusiats) believe that the average citizen can be trusted to own machine guns. But I'm not so sure about WMD's. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to deal in absolutes. Can we really be comfortable allowing anyone with the money and resources to develop WMD's?
Additionally, that would not exclude Congres from making laws governing the transportation or use of said weapons, and the intent could be twisted to exclude ammunition, thereby rendering weapons useless.
I believe that the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers was unparralleled for it's time, but I also suspect that if you could go back in time and give them the last year's worth of newspapers to look over, our Constitution would be a much longer document.