I will not deny the hunter with the beer gut, a stench of chewing tobacco, and a ideological vendetta against Mexican Americans the right to wield a big gun. But may I politely suggest that he invest his money more intelligently into weapons that could effectively perform the task that they were intended to perform by the U.S. Constitution. What was that task? To fight the U.S. Army, of course. The idea of a citizen militia is a direct offspring of the opposition to a standing army in the time of peace. So not only should you have sufficient weaponry to overthrow the U.S. government, but you must also have enough to defend this country from invaders.
For this reason, I suggest that that very hunter should purchase an anti-tank weapon such as the Tandem warhead and of course the hot new RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile to defend against your basic aircraft. Stealth planes are tricky and will require him to shop around a bit.
The above two paragraphs are full of sarcasm, which I usually don’t think is appropriate on such polarizing issues. I apologize…
The point I’m trying to make is that the U.S. Constitution should not be brought up in the discussion of gun control. If you believe that semi-automatic weapons will help prevent crime, that’s fine. State so, and the burden of evidence for that claims lies on you. Do not hide behind an old law which had very different intentions and very different weapons in mind.
I will confess to have little intuition about how a gun in the hands an untrained civilian could help prevent violence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not so. I do have much more understanding and intuition about the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and hope that people do no abuse its few words to argue for things it had never meant to address.