Actually the 2nd amendment is one of the briefest& most succient of ALL of the amendments on purpose to minimize if not to eliminate any misunderstanding of it's intent/message. Technictely(sp), A person should be allowed to own a ICBM. With that said, I personally have a problem with any one & every one having a Thompson submachine gun but prohibition of such IS in violition of the 2nd amendment. It is subject to the simple "infringement" of wording.<quoted text>
If that was true, we should have the right to bear NUCLEAR arms (otherwise it's going to be a pretty one-sided battle!)
Actually, the text of the amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but the Supreme Court has ruled that that, while the right exists, all sorts of limitations are legal. That sure sounds like "infringement" to me.
IF the 2nd amendment needs to be re-worded then it should be re-written but until then it is the unambigiuos constitutional law.