[robertpaulsen]

If the weapon is "in common civilian use" it's protected. If not, it's not.

What's the problem?

[ctdonath2]

The problem is: if that’s really what the Founding Fathers meant, and was so implemented in law, we’d still be using muzzleloaders. New things are not common until they grow into commonallity. M4s can’t become “common” because 922(o) prohibits it, which by your view is constitutional because they are not common. The circular reasoning is stupid.

Do you really think the Founding Fathers meant “only those arms in common use”? or “anything that will facilitate defending against our enemies”?