Bobo, the point was if everyone has the right to be armed where does the armament stop? If you put a stop on something like I mentioned then all of a sudden you put restraints on the second or you made a gun law if you like. When the second was made there were limited weapons & I'll bet they never envisioned what's out there today, so simply put where & how does it stop?
That's fallacy. The founders didn't live in a tiny time limit. They knew weapons would improve. And they didn't say that the 2nd only applied to the weapons of that time. When the 2nd was ratified there were no restrictions on what type of firearms people could own. Gun control laws are a fairly modern invention. The first national firearms act didn't happen until 1934. One of the first, NYC's Sullivan Act wasn't until 1911. So gun control laws have really only been around for less than half the time we've been a country.
In fact, many civilians during the revolutionary period owned far more lethal weapons than what most of the world's militaries were using at the time. They had rifled barreled flintlocks, which have greater range and much better accuracy than the smooth bore muskets the Continental Army, or the British Army had.
And about that time, it was required that all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 arm themselves with a musket (the equivalent of modern military firearms), two flints, a bayonet, cartage box of at least 24 cartridges, ball and powder, and other military equipment to be able to spend time in the field.
So, even if you only go strictly by the "militia only" point of view of the 2nd amendment, today's "equal" to that would mean most of the males in this country would all be required to have their own M-16, or M-4, with 30 round mags, ammo, and bayonet. We'd be like Switzerland, who no country dares to mess with. Guess why ?