Look up the second ammendment of the Bill of Rights. It's the principle of the issue that many people care about, not the practicality.

Okay, The Bill of Rights (which I have studied extensively) does not guarantee the right to own an uzi. It grants the right to bear arms for the purposes of Militia defense. That's all well and good when the idea of a big arsenal was a whole bunch of muzzleloaders that wouldn't put a dent in a twinkie at 50 yards. IMHO and in the opinion of many lawmakers in this country this particular article needs to be re-written to allow the right to own a weapon without granting the right to start an armory. This argument about rights for the sake of rights is idiotic. This article was put in place to allow militiamen to own weapons to protect from British invasion because we didn't have good military support at the time. The need for such a provision for the sake of Militia support is obsolete at best in this country. While I do feel that a right to own a weapon should be part of our constitution...I question the rationality and reason behind an obsolete article that allows any idiot out there to own an automatic weapon with which they could mow down a whole group of people in seconds.

Check it out for yourself