> Not trying to be overly-pedantic, but when people say "will not be infringed" I translate that to mean handguns, shotguns, and rifles (up to semi-automatic).

> Not trying to be overly-pedantic, but when people say "will not be infringed" I translate that to mean handguns, shotguns, and rifles (up to semi-automatic). Anything beyond those definitions start getting into what I will concede are legitimate "weapons of war" (machine guns, explosives, biological weapons) which merits restriction. I think you have a very skewed view of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. "Weapons of war" is exactly the sort of thing it should be protecting. Ban handguns? Fine (under the amendment) - no one uses those in war (minus epsilon). I wouldn't be happy with it, since they're rather useful for self defence, but I could at least see it being justified. But short barreled shotguns? Submachine guns? Assault rifles? Anti-materiel rifles and RPGs? MANPADS, mortars and artillery? All those should be perfectly fine and dandy under the 2nd amendment, as evidenced by the privately owned warships and cannon around the beginning of the 19th century. Yes, this means that it's been infringed a hell of a lot. Which is part of why gun rights groups fight so hard - give a little more ground, and there might not be any more to fall back to.