Did I Miss the Sunset Clause in the Bill of Rights?

Opponents of semi-automatic long arms that look like military weapons capable of firing fully automatic like to think they have played a trump card when they assert that the founding fathers could not have anticipated weapons like the M-16 when they established the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to own single shot, muzzle-loading firearms.

Surely not, any more than the drafters of the 1st Amendment could have anticipated the Internet rather than the expensive printing press of their time.

But in regard to the 2nd Amendment, do keep in mind that making it legal for the fellow citizens of our founders to own muskets very clearly was intended to allow the citizens to match the weapons that the military used at the time.

Perhaps I'm just too soft on the 2nd Amendment because I'm willing to accept that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own modern common infantry weapons like automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades. The latter can be outlawed since they are explosive weapons and not firearms, without infringing on the right to own arms, I suppose. I can justify the former example since the Army spent approximately zero time (rounded down) teaching me to fire automatic weapons. I had the opportunity to fire a short belt of M-60 ammunition and fired exactly 18 rounds on "burst" setting with my M-16--which could not fire fully automatic. If it wasn't important for the Army to equip me with a fully automatic personal firearm, I can accept denying that to civilians.

But I would like to point out that the idea that a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 should be banned because it looks like an M-16 on the grounds that our founders couldn't have foreseen the development of the M-16 is ridiculous. If anything, an appeal to original intent should provide for more expansive ownership of military grade arms. Heck, shouldn't I be able to walk around with a long sword on my hop if the right to bear arms is technology based and related to what the contemporary military uses?

The passage of time does not erode our constitutional rights. Solving problems arguably related to those rights should be crafted to avoid infringing on those rights, as they stand.

Good grief, I think it should go without saying that I am against little children being gunned down, or stabbed, or blown up. Is it really out of line to ask what proposed restrictions on a right have to do with protecting children? Or asking whether the children of Newtown would be alive today if those proposed laws had been in effect? Or at best, what level of rights reduction is justifiable?

Or is the ACLU to be accused of supporting genocide because they go to court to protect the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in public as their 1st Amendment rights allow?

If you think our rights should be constrained, amend the constitution and see if you have support. Don't try to justify ignoring the constitution with what you think are clever bypasses.