Why has my post been ignored:
Because I went out to dinner and a movie with some people and just got back in. :lol:
Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?
Yeah, we've seen this argument before.
At the time the BoR was written, the most sophisticated weapon was the flintlock rifle with the rifled bore, enabling a skilled rifleman to kill out to 200 yards. I expect some folks felt that such a deadly weapon shouldn't be in civilian hands... indeed some Brit officers during the Rev-War complained about American sharpshooters targeting officers, which was Not Done in their book.
The most powerful weapons were muzzle-loading black-powder cannons... and it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own them. One of those, loaded with grapeshot or chain-shot, could be fired into a crowd killing dozens.
Private citizens could own a sailing ship and arm it with as many cannons as they pleased, effectively making it a private frigate (warship). If they were so inclined, they could use that private frigate to pirate, raid and plunder.
The Founders didn't seem overly concerned with these weapons, trusting that the majority of citizens would use them wisely and prudently and lawfully... and that the few that didn't would either find themselves on the wrong end of law officers or outraged (and armed) fellow citizens.
Clearly they believed that the citizenry (the Unorganized Militia, I have Founder quotes if you need them) should have rough parity with the Regular Army and Select Militia in terms of arms.
Now, to further explain why your point is not the trump-card, I will express it differently with a different Amendment.... the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"But the Founders could not have concieved of a time when Muslim extremism would threaten the country! Or how media would diversify to the point that any idiot commentator with a microphone and a radio station or a blog could say crazy stuff and agitate people and feed them wrong information! They couldn't have concieved how the Internet would make flash-mobs possible, or allow groups to lobby the government with email spam! So the First Amendment doesn't really apply to all that stuff, just the religions they had back then, and media printed on real paper!"
See how ridiculous it is? :lol: