Originally Posted by carve
The intent of the amendment is to ensure the people have weapons suitable for armed infantry combat. Banning the weapons and mags suitable for this is a violation of the 2A and goes against the intent. Unless the constitution is amended, we should be able to carry anything a typical infantry soldier carries....maybe even something better (the Kentucky Rifle was vastly superior to the British "Brown Bess")
Yes, BUT it must be said that at that time, the infantry really comprised the only type of organized threat the average citizen would have to go up against. (whether it was their own government tyranically oppressing them, or whether it's the British invading, or <insert other country here>).
Planes and helicopters were not invented, and neither were many other types of self-propelled, motorized, armored vehicles, some of which could move much faster than the speed of sound. Nobody thought of missiles being launched from a submerged nuclear submarines off the coast, taking out your buildings.
Interpreting the 2nd amendment in a more literal, orthodox or old fashioned way would basically enable the populace to be ready to defend against any attacker (foreign or domestic), as long as that attacker just stepped out of time machine from 200 years ago.
If they are coming with an armored attack helicopter (with the precision of laser guided armaments and the ability to see clearly in pitch darkness), regardless of the flag painted on the side of the helicopter, the odds are so lopsided even before the 7-round restriction, that I'd argue it no longer creates a deterrant against anyone.
IMHO, this is why most people in other countries are not all screaming they can't defend themselves, because they realize if the shit really hits the fan at home, they are dead man walking anyway, regardless of what some limited rights to ownership of rifles an outdated rule in a constitution might grant.
To create a REAL deterrant is to give said populace the RPG's, etc. So unless you do that, you are already making a mockery of what the founders intended, IMHO. So, then you gotta ask yourself, do you start down that slope, or do you say, you know what, a different time calls for a different interpretation.
Obviously, your opinion may vary, but that's what's informing my statements.