Liberty

I believe that there is a serious misunderstanding about what liberty is even among so called conservatives. Some I would call my friends even. Liberties line is not drawn where there is no conceivable need for something. Liberties bounds should be based on a moral compass that values the liberties of others as well as leaves the holder with unlimited capital to build, invent, own or discover whatever strikes his or her fancy so long as the needs and welfare of those that are in his charge be they wife/children/family are met. Because you have no need of a car that is capable of traveling at the speed of sound should in no way hinder you in your quest of said car. If your desire is to build a (fill in the blank). The lack of a true societal need for said (?) should not preclude you from fulfilling that desire. Now granted the moral dilemma of building a x device is still yours to wrestle with. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That is between you and your conscience. When it come to the debate of firearms the argument of choice is "there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon". Very well that may be the logic that prevents you from purchasing one for yourself but that's not a sound enough reason to prevent another man or woman from the rapid fire expression of liberty that is guaranteed by the bill of rights. You wouldn't limit a mans words to only what he can legitimately use in a reasonable conversation and no more. "No one needs more than 1000 words to tell his neighbor how he feels about his football team"
At the heart of the second amendment is the defense of liberty by putting the tyrant on notice. The ability of the able bodied men and/or women of the community should act as a deterrent to over reach of government.