Right to Bear Arms

Just checking out what I'm allowed to own in California. Looks to me like we can own guns as long they are not, at all, competitive with what the government has...

Here's the generic characteristics list for the weapons prohibition in CA

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php

Notice we can not have a weapons that can carry more than 10 rounds or accept any type of removable cartridge. So in a fire fight, we must stop down to reload after 10 shots but the gov and/or criminals can wail away at us with 30 round clip after clip.
Sorta like a pocket knife vs a claymore. What's the point?

I'll bet any money the "justification" for this is something along the lines of "citizens don't need assault weapons for self defence"...the missing factor is that we won't be defending ourselves from other law abiding citizens, we will be defending ourselves against criminals or the government. In fact, the reason the constitution guaranties us the right to bear arms is so that we may defend ourselves from our GOVERNMENT. So they are making sure that the best weapon we can have is a 7 shot, chambered, hunting rifle. Great against deer....not so good against AK47-style assault rifles and teargas.

So really, there is no "real" way to defend ourselves against the government in the state of CA.

Our constitutional rights are being trampled. You mean to tell me I must accept that some "well trained" 19 year old soldier or police officer has better judgement in the use of an assault weapon than me? No way! It's simply that the government doesn't want us to be able to exercise our right to replace them, entirely, if we choose. They work for us, not the other way around!