Originally Posted by MteK
That's your completely subjective interpretation of the 2nd amendment and clearly proven wrong by the fact that the original Assault Weapons ban was not overturned, but simply expired.
Even Justice Antonin Scalia agrees:
"So you think you know the 2nd amendment?
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. How does one logically read "the people" to mean "the state sanctioned militia"? The militia was just loosely affiliated citizens who took up arms when necessary. I know I know- it sounds ridiculous at the moment, but where's your crystal ball that guarantees such a thing will never be needed again? It's happening all around the world right now. If you wait long enough, it's almost guaranteed it'll be needed again one day, even if that day is far off.
Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."
That's politics for you. What did you expect him to say? "Fuck that- we're just going to ignore it"? They have to come up with something if they're going to ignore it. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Like all the other things in the bill of rights, it's the individual people who are having their rights protected.
I believe there is one privately owned F-16 out there. If you wanted to develop your own fighter, I don't think anyone would stop you, but the government is pretty selective on who they'll sell frontline military hardware for, and they paid for the development of those fighters and can do what they want with them. I really wouldn't have much of a problem with people buying exotic military hardware though; those who could afford it have too much to lose to abuse the power. They're really not necessary in a civil conflict though, as governments typically don't want to lay waste to their own nation, and typically some of the military units are on the rebel side.
Don't forget- the colonists were fighting against their own government, and that government had the most powerful military in the world.