Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The above is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
By definition, "A well regulated Militia" is limited in what it can do, use have, etc. That limitation is imposed by the govt. Thus, the govt does--per the US Constitution--have the unconditional right, power, and authority to restrict what weapons (if any) they (Militia) are allowed to use and/or carry.
"free State"--but what about a free Nation? People can't rationally claim the authors of the US Constitution did NOT know the difference between a "State" and a "Nation" or a "Country" or the "United States". Once a "State" joins the "United States", it is no longer a "free State"--it is part of the "United States". That is what the Civil War was all about....
Read all of the SCOTUS opinions on Bill of Right issues. It will show you 1) the rights are subject to interpretation and must be considered in the context of the Constitution as a whole - and not in a vacuum; 2) that interpretation can change over time (pay particular attention to the cases on the Fourth Amendmentment and the distinction between procedural and substantive due process); and 3) the right to keep and bear arms is not there to protect us from foreign invaders (you've watched "Red Dawn" too many times).
Add to that requirements to get a broadcast license to exercise one's First Amendment rights, or incurring costs to adjudicate due process claims (or unlawful taking claims) all of which are protected in the Bill of Rights. Why is the Second Amendment right so special it must go totally unimpeded?
- 86 47 -
| 
