The right to keep and bear arms, in the United States, is very basic. I support this right, but as with all thing, within reasonable and rational limits. Just as the first amendment does not allow you to say anything with impunity, so the second is not absolute. In fact there is no such thing, legitimately in my humble opinion, as an absolute right.

I believe that there is no reasonable or rational justification for ordinary citizens to possess many types of weapons. These include, of course, nukes, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Also I see no legitimate purpose for private ownership of aircraft carriers, fighter jets, bombers, howitzers, tanks, missiles, anti-tank weaponry, machine guns, 'assault weapons' and the like. Pistols, rifles, etc I have little problem with at all... especially when a person does not own dozens of them.

I beleive that it is legitimate and rational to have reasonable gun regulation, restriction and registration. We do this for cars, why not for something as inherently deadly by design as guns? I hear the cries already... "Oh, but that is just a first step towards confiscation and a total gun ban!". Sorry, that doesn't wash. If someone proposes mass confiscation or a total gun ban OPPOSE THAT. I will do so. However that 'chicken little' approach to public policy is idiotic in my humble opinion. You deal with what is proposed, not with what MIGHT someday be proposed by some fool.