Blah, Blah, Blah...You are right that it does not matter just not for the reason you think. As for the car=weapons argument I agree with you comparing the two is ridiculous. That was what I was pointing out in my response to someone who was trying to compare the two.
That being said your argument to Constitutionality of gun control is pertinent.
If you are going to argue from the strict constructionist point of view then you the Constitution would only grant you the right to bear arms that were in existence at the time of the Constitution. Therefore you would have the unfettered right to own any number of muzzle loading black powder guns you wish. That along with swords, black powder cannonade and mortars you are more than welcome to own free of regulation by the government. However since modern weapons are not included under a strict constructionist interpretation then they can be regulated as much or as little as the legislature sees fit unfettered by Constitutional constraints. Even if you take a more liberal strict constructionist view and believe that the fore fathers could envision automatic weapons and such there is still no Constitutional impediment to regulating gun ownership in order to promote the general welfare as it is clear that machine solely designed to maim and kill is a public health hazard and as such under the general welfare clause Congress does have the power to legislate legislation as long as that legislation does not outright ban weapons.
If you are broad constructionist than it there is no Constitutional impediment because the congress shall have the power to legislate gun control under the necessary proper clause. Either way meaningful, legitimate gun control IS Constitutional by any measure you want to stand it up to.
If you are arguing from
Off to one of the gun rights threads with you, dude.