Alright, it appears that this may be the right thread in which to ask what is to me a rather vexing question about the Second Amendment. And I should preface by saying that I am, myself, a political scientist at a university, though I've only recently become interested in this issue. I, frankly, find the legalistic language used both in the defense of and in the attempts to undermine the Amendment's intent to be witheringly complex and heading in a direction that's less than intuitive.
I have no problem with interpreting the Amendent as preventing the infringement of a right of private persons to bear arms, and I also see no problem with the militia clause. No matter how one interprets the sentence the founders clearly saw a link between maintaining a "well ordered" militia and the skills associated with that militia, which could be cultivated reliably only by allowing young men (and I think the founders would now agree, women) to develop marksmanship and hunting skills, etc. And the fact that the US now maintains a massive standing army doesn't really change that. One could explain the situation to the Founders, and there'd be a light of recognition in their eyes, and a nod.
I also don't see how one can possibly argue that a group of people armed with the kinds of weapons that seem reasonable to own privately could possibly hope to prevail against even a relatively anemic modern standing army, but I do agree with the symbolism that private arms represent, and how that alters the relationship between the individual and the state. I think I can defend that with some passion and eloquence.
But the problem is this: Where does one draw the line regarding what constitutes "arms?" If your argument is that there *is no* line, and that one has to interpret the Second Amendment to mean an unrestricted right to bear any sort of arms, then the whole thing becomes indefensible and ridiculous. And all the legalese in the world doesn't make it any less ridiculous. How about nukes, chemical weapons, nerve agents, bioweapons?
Now, I've discussed this with a friend of mine who served in Special Forces and his response was that the Founders used the term "arms" that according to the conventions of the time specifically excluded cannon. His proposal was that, at the very least, one could draw the line at cannon, and I frankly buy that argument. It at least resolves the problem of restricting an otherwise absolute right, and makes the interpretation as a "right" defensible and non-ridiculous. I don't feel foolish defending such a right. Not at all.
Now another person who is pro-Second Amendment (as is my friend, and as I am I think) has pointed out that private persons owned cannon, and even owned private warships with cannon, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and he claims that this invalidates my friend's argument. Having thought that over, however, I find it not that devastating to the argument. People may have owned cannon legally even though they had no Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. There was simply no law against it. There was no guaranteed right to smoke opium, but people did it legally for a long time.
So I'm really trying to get at where that line is really drawn. Now, assuming for the moment that the founders did draw the line at cannon, what might they have to say about fully automatic weapons? Strictly speaking the founders were talking about muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, so grounding the interpretation on the strict meaning of "arms" at the time is a stretch. I can see how one could argue that they'd reasonably foresee technological advancements in what they had in mind as "privately owned arms," and that these would include rifled barrels, breech loading, repeating and ultimately semi-automatic weopons.
But in order to make this conjecture more than simply a presumption one could run through a sort of thought experiment. What I'm suggesting is simply, go through the exercise of explaining to the founders how and why you've interpreted their Amendment to encompass the possession of any of the technical advancements listed above, and also including fully automatic weapons. I think one could easily accomplish this sort of thing with the First Amendment, and after a little update about modern media they'd agree that the principle applies to TV, telephones, fax, email, etc. I am not, however, fully convinced that the Founders would concur about the application of their words in the Second Amendment to encompass the private ownership of fully automatic weapons, but I can be convinced otherwise. My sense is that they'd take one look at what a moder automatic weapon can do and think "cannon."
And if you think the claim to draw the line at cannon is false, why do you think that and what would you propose in its stead, if anything? Because I assure you the concept of an unmitigated and unrestricted right is a political nonstarter. And if you think it's a transcendant right of some sort then you're going to have to call on transcendant beings, rather than mere humans, to defend it.
And if you know any of those, what's her name and address?