I don’t know how one would prove that the founders would approve of a ban on any particular type of weapon, nor am I inclined to support any ban on weapons, at least “personal” weapons.
By “personal” weapons, I mean weapons that would be used by an individual against an individual. I don’t think I want the average citizen to be able to purchase an anti-aircraft weapon, an RPG, or a mortar, for example — but I’m not saying I could prove that banning those things would not go against the founder’s wishes.
The reason I used the word “virtually” is because I am certain that there are a small group who would completely lift all bans on the purchase of weapons. But I doubt there would be enough of them to fill a stadium.
Who is going to sign off on allowing the average person to buy a suitcase nuclear device, after all? Do we want Bill Gates to own his own Abrams tank, or Warren Buffet to have a fleet of stealth fighters?
I do realise that without access to more lethal weapons, the 2nd amendment’s promise of a citizenry that can overcome the government is without effect. In the days of the revolution, there were no tanks, no powered equipment, no airplanes, and in the end the only real advantage an army had over a group of individuals was they might have some cannons (and of course ships if you were near a large body of water).
A ragtag group of citizens could not hope to defeat a warship, but the warship had limited ability to cause damage once you moved inland, and the enemy then had to march after you, with only what they could carry, which means you were up against similar weapons to what you were carrying.
Nowadays, the military can destroy you without you ever getting to see who it is that killed you. No weapon you could possess would protect you, or give you the ability to rise up and overthrow the government (reminds me of a star trek NG episode whe the Cheliack conglomerate was taking over a planet).
We can still do so, but we need help from the state militias, which DO have possession of some tanks, airplanes, and other more serious weaponry.
Anyway, the question isn’t whether there are a few people who would lift all bans, but whether any of our candidates are promising to do ANYTHING about ANY current gun laws. I looked at the web sites, and I don’t see ANY candidate promising to repeal a single national gun law.
Instead, I see support for gun-free zones, even from stalwarts like Fred Thompson. I see most of our candidates saying that the key to our security is aggressive Law Enforcement, and strict enforcement of current gun laws — when you and I know that the key to security is an armed citizenry, that LEO only shows up after people are dead and the situation is secure.
I realise they are being politically expedient, and so I give them all a pass. As I said, I simply do not think it is rational to single out Mitt Romney as unacceptable when his position is only about 1% different from Fred Thompson, when looking at all the different issues surrounding gun ownership and gun carry.
I think that you are very wrong.
The military was not involved in the initial squabbles which brought about the American Revolution. It was tax collectors. If you wish to attack the government, you don't take on the military, you take on the Department of Motor Vehicles. You shut down City Hall. Even public schools would have to cease if the people in great numbers decided to abolish their present form of government.
If the government can't collect or spend taxes, then it ceases to exist.