Not just that, but there are some that believe that the 2nd amendment means a collective right and that the states provide the individual right. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707016/posts?page=438#438 for one such person. Problem with that theory is that some states do not have clauses for RKBA in their state Constitutions (which would mean that there is no right) and some (like SC) have thier RKBA clause worded exactly like the 2nd Amendment (which would mean that the state's constititution provides for a collective right). I have provided quotes from founding fathers stating that the right is an individual right, but he just ignores them and keeps stating about court decisions (the same ones that found a right to have abortions) found that it was a collective right. This from a self professed gun owner.
The poster you're referring to appears to believe that the States have been given the power to decide which weapons qualify as suitable for militia use. He is basing this on a Supreme Court decision. He most likely lives in a state who's gun laws and government officials are agreeable to him. He probably figures that if you don't like your state's gun laws and government officials, you should move. Fair enough.
The first problem I see is that the judicial fiat in question is unconstitutional, and just the sort of thing that the militia was put in place to counter. The second problem I see is that nothing in his thesis is preventing his state, and every other state, from becoming a state who's gun laws and government officials are disagreeable to him, and everyone else. Once this happens, there is nowhere to move to.
The authors of the Constitution, men who have referred to politicians as always evil each and every time, weren't naive enough to believe that state government would always be behind the people, and only federal government can be corrupted. Since the signing of the Constitution, politicians have been trying to take power away from the people and transfer it to themselves. They have twisted the words of the 2nd Amendment by adding things, like an act defining a militia, after the fact. Soon, they will move on to twisting the definition of a free state. So if a state isn't free, then a militia isn't necessary, right? What constitutes a free state? A judge will just have to tell us, right?
This kind of slavery to judicial rule is what enables courts to legislate away our freedom. Nobody puts judges in their place when they cross the line. The judge in the above referenced decision just wanted to do society a favor and put away an obvious criminal. Unfortunately, he misused his power in order to do so and ultimately caused a crack in the Constitution. The same thing happened in that contraception decision. With the benefit of hind-sight we now see the horrible error that's been made, and it is now up to us to correct it through the NRA and other organizations.
That silly 'it's not a weapon fit for a militia' argument is just an old gun-grabbers trick. Nobody should decide what weapons we can keep and bear, because it is only a matter of time before the decision becomes *no* weapon. The inevitable 'tactical nuke' argument that gets dragged out when this is said has no merit. The cost alone to build or obtain such a weapon is in the domain of only a handful of citizens. Citizens who are so rich and powerful that, if they really wanted to, could get a nuke regardless of laws.
The other outcome of that Supreme Court decision was that a "militia" was defined using language that suggested that it was really a national guard arm of the military, instead of the peoples' militia it was intended to be. This one small group of unelected judges single handedly overturned years worth of 2nd Amendment Supreme Court precedents, all to put one lousy criminal behind bars. Ever since that decision, gun-grabbers have used it to transfer the people's power to the government. During the time period of that decision, nobody seriously thought that the 2nd Amendment referred to a government militia, and the decision was never thought to seriously overturn previous precedents. Just like the contraceptive ruling though, it put a crack in the Constitution that the enemies of freedom have been able to exploit ever since.
Future FReepers may be referring to the eminent domain ruling in a similar way we refer to the rulings above. The right to own property may someday be regulated by the government due to exploiting that unconstitutional ruling. Hindsight has made us smarter now then we were then, but we still can't seem to prevent this sort of thing from happening.