Weapons of mass destruction such as nerve gas, bio and nuclear weapons - are instruments that were not envisaged by the framers of the consititution. It is true you and I refer to them as "weapons" but I believe a constitutional lawyer could succesfully argue that these instruments are NOT arms covered by 2nd ammendment rights. In deed, as you have pointed out, we have standing restrictions already on firearms (automatics, most clearly) that either not been challenged in Supreme Court or have been allowed by the Supreme Court. I really do not believe that there is a problem with my logic at all. The restrictions are already in place, and coexisting without conflict with the second ammendment.

It is clear that the technology has advanced significantly beyond the simple language of the ammendment, and that court decisions in the future will have to determine just how it should be applied in specific test cases. Again, I don't beleive it will be struck down, in the near future, but gun control advocates may win further victories with a more left leaning court (if there is a swing in that direction in the future).

I actually urge a constitutional law arguement rather then a court manipulation because this is an important issue. It is a significant personal freedom and changes to it will have long lasting effect to future generations. If we are to make changes to this right; we ought to do it at a highly involved socially aware level. We should not allow a strong vocal and highly organized minority make major changes without full public awareness. Consititutional law requires are a deep public involvment - and would guarantee public awareness.