Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?
The rights of the individual cannot always trump the decisions of the government.

For example: you could argue that since the 2nd is not specific, you should be allowed the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. And the government would be wise to tell you to sod off. And if you were trying to build one, they'd be wise to throw you in jail because there is no reason why you should own a thermonulear weapon.

Despite the fact that you can argue it's an individual right allowed by the constituation, it is for the good of the whole that individuals don't have them. If no good can come from something, then the government has a case for restricting you, as indicated by the previous example.
Bruno, the second amendment is probably not a good example for your point. As a point of fact no serious argument could be crafted as a legal basis to support the idea that citizens have the right to weapon's of mass destruction. The second amendment's intent was to keep weapons of self defense in the hands of private non-military citizens and strip the federal government of the ability to take those weapons away. No understanding of that amendment's intent could broaden it's scope to what you are talking about and I don't believe anyone would seriously try to make it. (Apologies, as a student of constitutional law I just had to make that point) :-)

Hope that helps.

Regards,
EL