> I would disagree with both of you. By "arms," what is meant is state of the art at whatever time you're in.
>
> There's an interesting federal law that nobody talks about, but it's still in effect -- if a private citizen wants a personal state of the art weapon but cannot afford one, the government is obligated to provide one. It's the IRS that does it, actually. My uncle knows this guy in Georgia that did that. He applied to the IRS for a weapon -- something insane like an M-16. It took eight months of paperwork, background checks, red tape, and discouragement from federal employees, but he got it.

I agree. I believe the framers of the Constitution purposefully worded it so that it would endure. They had to have known that by substituting "muskets" for "arms", the Second Amendment would have been obsolete within 50 or so years.

It's the spirit (for lack of a better term) of the Constitutional laws that must endure, not their specifics. Which is exactly why the Constitution allows itself to be amended.

My belief is that of "guns for everyone". Now...I also believe that the types of guns citizens are allowed to own should be regulated. I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning a fully automatic M-16, but I think the process of getting one should be a daunting task in the least. Right now, anyone can apply for a Class III license (license to own a fully automatic firearm), but there is a lot of red tape to go through (which is the way it should be).