The Founding Fathers weren't two amendments deep into the Constitution of the United States without mentioning weapons. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Modern society is left to interpret those few words to regulate public well-being.
Those engaged in the gun control conversation too often swap "to keep and bear arms" with "own guns." However, guns are but one weapon in a sprawling galaxy of arms. Per the general language included in the Second Amendment any citizen can possess, and use, any weapon. Therefore, the Constitution of the United States allows me to own and employ a hydrogen bomb. That seems ridiculous, but where do you draw the line, and who draws it?
The card-carrying National Rifle Association members and gun junkies believe they know where the line is drawn?
I'd argue that if one person can own an AK-47, another can own an Apache attack chopper. You want an Uzi; I want a ballistic missile system. If you can keep an assault rifle in your gun cabinet, I can keep a nuclear submarine in my swimming pool. And don't complain if you think the Muslim Brotherhood is building a dirty bomb in their tree house, or the neo-Nazis are hoarding Molotov cocktails for the next town hall meeting -- these are just free citizens exercising their right to keep arms.
God forbid if they bear them.