Also, so as not to confuse anyone. I will take various sides during this debate to help find the weak points in my own argument. Don't confuse that for support of specific point of view
Woods Walker wrote:
Necessary by WHO'S definition? Yours? Mine? Michael Bloomberg's? And as far as I know there's NOTHING in the Constitution that refers to the us having to justify how we choose to excercise our natural freedoms to the government or to anyone else as long as we are doing it legally. To play devil's advocate again..........You say 5 rounds. Let's say I say 20 (that's just a number for arguement's sake...I have no set number), and Michael Bloomberg says 0. Who gets to choose? Who has the most clout?
We either have the right or we don't. You can't say that we have the right to have this arm, but not that one. Once you give elected people the power to determine what a legal "arm" is, then you may as well throw the whole 2A out, because it's no longer worth spit.
It's like saying that you have the freedom of speech, except if I disagree with you and then I get to determine what you can and cannot say. .