"State" refers to the United States, unless the authors were talking among themselves about the possibility of their respective states going to war with each other in the future, which is nonsense.
The authors had no conception of modern weapons and their killing power. If they had, they would agree with the current practice of limiting private ownership of heavy weapons.
We have a well-regulated militia - the US armed forces. The need for handy weapons in order to form a militia is now a meaningless anachronism. Anyone who is so paranoid and twisted that they fantasize about going into battle against our own troops needs to be locked up, not listened to. I agree with George Washington's concept that a proliferation of small arms might keep some forms of violence in check, but today the people who need to be kept in check are the gun nuts themselves. (I own several and enjoy target shooting.) "Shall not be infringed" is also an anachronism - sane people have historically passed laws limiting what weapons can be privately owned and under what circumstances.
The only relevant remaining question is, what kind of weapons should be available to private citizens? Common sense says that having more assault weapons out there is a bigger risk to the public than limiting private ownership of assault weapons. I think that the 10-round limit is high enough, despite what the greedy gun manufacturers and their knee-jerk toadies rant about. Universal background checks are just common sense.
Gun Lovers Politics Home