I think you guys are thinking about this all wrong.
The question was
Do you think the founding fathers would approve of citizens owning the conventional weapons of the our time? I'm talking tanks, military jets, etc.
The answer, is going to be different for each of us, and is largely irrelevant, since the fact is, the founding fathers had no clue whatsoever about technological advances.
Where this goes wrong is trying to "interpret" or extend the 2nd ammendment, or as preacherman brought up, the first ammendment.
In cases like these, where so much has changed, we should totally eschew the "living document" BS and simply do what the founding fathers provided...
make ANOTHER ammendment.
That lets us debate the real question, "SHOULD we be able to own tanks and F15s?" without all that pesky business about what the founding fathers meant 200 years ago.
And not only that, but "SHOULD we be able to own sporting guns? or self defense guns? or guns for revolution? or gun-wannabes like lorcins and jennings?"
naturally, I think the answer to all those is yes.
and for preacherman, I think we need to update the 1st ammendment as well. I think everyone should enjoy the same freedoms it reserves for "the press". I think "freedom of religion" certainly needs clarification since there's soooo much debate over the "separation of church and state" doctrine. And certainly, freedom of speech needs a bit of clarification too.
as far as I'm concerned, neither congress or the courts are representing "the People" on any of these issues.