I am with Wolfscout. Furthermore, there is no language within the constitution that allows for the regulation of firearms. Like many powers the federal government has, it is a usurped power. Regulating away, or otherwise limiting, the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves will not further the cause of less criminal activity. Criminals will acquire weapons regardless of what the prevailing laws are, that is why they are criminals (because they do not abide by the laws.) The criminal element aside, my concern would come more from armed government agents. As government accrues more power (unconstitutionally and often illegally) it becomes more corrupt. As power centralizes there are fewer and fewer forces to hold the centralized authority in check. To paraphrase Lord Acton; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An armed populace is a powerful countervailing force to centralized power. This is the reason why we have seen historically tyrannical and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes strip the populace of its weapons and prohibit the right to bear arms (this can be seen during the Tokugawa period in Japan, when only the Samurai were allowed to be armed [outside of the standing army], Stalin stripping the ability of the citizens to protect themselves, Hitler (first with the Jews, then I believe the rest of the German population,) the British leading up the Revolution in the colonies, etc.) Ultimately, in a free society, the individual is responsible and has the right to protect themselves; this is a philosophical issue.

Regards,
Princi