[quote=@DarkwolfX37]
<Snipped quote by Armed Forces>

It was, however, designed in order for well trained militias to be formed, not for the average person (see also: utter moron) to have an assault rifle for no reason other than "Oh it's cool."
That's not to say we should ban them, but for fuck's sake we need to jump through tons of hoops in order to get a CAR, something we use to move places, and yet I could easily go get a high powered firearm that could mow down a ton of people. And >I< should not be able to legally get a gun. Yet I could, pretty easily. 
[/quote]

And I respectfully disagree with the fact that cars have as many hoops to jump through as they do, but you probably expect that of me. Just, it bugs me that people make the argument I mentioned as though the Founding Fathers had:

•No expectation for the progression of technology in warfare.
•No inclination to design their Constitution for the future (which everyone knows they did.)
•Lack of foresight.
•Failed in creating a document with flexibility that would allow the country to run on its word for generations. (It has)
•Failed to see that designing the amendment with only their time's technology in mind would create a set of laws that [i][b]couldn't[/b][/i] change with the times or even fulfill the purpose for which it was made at any point beyond the immediate situation they needed it for, which was to fight oppressors on a level playing field in regards to equipment.

It doesn't make sense to argue that the Second Amendment was designed with muskets in mind and muskets only. Just argue the real reason you believe what you do, and say that you simply feel like the best way to make our country better is to restrict access to weapons. I have more respect for anyone who, if they don't know why they believe something, at least state that it's simply how they feel instead of trying to invent "reasons" like that.

EDIT: And I should say that making the argument about muskets and such does imply at least most of the bullets I wrote.