1) If a guy in a truck with a low-caliber rifle is not an effective weapon of war (particularly an occupation, rather than an invasion), then why is it the primary weapon system of the Army and Marines? Why has that been a successful insurgency weapons system in Afghanistan? Do you know something the Army doesn't?
2) Look around the world to see what modern guerrilla warfare looks like. It's not generally massed formations against military regulars- it's ambushes, harassment, and assassination.
3) Most countries don't want to lay waste to their own neighborhoods- it lowers the neighborhoods value and is not politically acceptable, because people don't like it when gunships strafe their cul-de-sac
4) Rifles offer a means to procure heavier weapons
5) Even if you were right, we can't just start interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says. What's the point of even having a constitution then? We'd require an amendment to change things for the times.
Last edited by carve; 01-24-2013 at 08:28 PM.