To clear up a misconception,it is not a Bill of Privileges, it is a Bill of Rights and according to US v Cruikshank(1875) the right to keep and bear arms is a pre existing right and in no way dependent on the US Constitution for its existence.<quoted text>
Yes, actually, I do.
I am well aware of the fact that every citizen of the United States has the Constitutionally granted right to own [a] firearm(s), but I'm not finding any intent on the part of the drafters of the contextual language of said Bill of Rights that even imply the granting of such right to extend to/be inclusive of the allowance for ANY type of firearm/gun...I mean, that would be as incredibly ridiculous on their parts as it is presumptuously ignorant of you and others who mirror your perspective to assume such an allowance.
Yes, we all do have a Bill of Rights that extends to every citizen certain privileges.
It is not "gun ownership" that I've an issue with, it is the ASSUMPTION that the pretense of the right of 'gun ownership' encompasses an implied right of ownership of ANY type of 'gun' that I've issue with.
Further,do you have any evidence that the framers intending the citizenry to have less sophisticated weapons than those they might take arms against? Me neither.
Kentucky long Rifle
"Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of "full 400 yards", and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."