In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, there has been a lot of debate regarding the second amendment, the right to bear arms, and the type of weaponry used in the shooting (Bushmaster AR-15, Glock 10mm, and Sig Sauer 9mm).  While there is ongoing debate as to the exact meaning behind the second amendment, in general, the second amendment concerns the right to bear arms.  However, much has changed in the world of weaponry since the Constitution was written in 1787; "arms" means something completely different today then it meant over two centuries ago.  Instead of flintlock pistols and muskets, we now have high-powered handguns and semi-automatic rifles.  Some people believe that we should not have the right to possess military-style weaponry, while others disagree.  Since the concept of "arms" changes constantly with technological innovations, why are American citizens not allowed to possess explosives for protection or for recreation?  When a person's home is searched by police and explosives are found, they are arrested and no one defends his right to possess these explosives under the second amendment.  Is that wrong?  Should law-abiding citizens who have never been convicted of a felony have the right to own explosives - even bunker busters, for example?  After all, if they have a big enough piece of property, and if they can hunt and use guns for recreation on that property, why can't they explode a few bunker busters?

Is there a limit to our second amendment rights, in your opinion?  If so, where should that limit be, and why?