In point of fact Mr Stanford professor, the weapons the founding fathers were protecting our right to keep were exactly the same ones the military had at the time. Therefore it could be argued the 2A protects our right to have exactly the same weapons as our government. Yes, including armored vehicles, automatic weapons, missiles, bombs, etc.
Only to point this out...because both sides of this debate are refusing to look at development and new trends...the big gun debate will be over within twenty years.
You can figure by 2030...a new trendy “zap” gun will exist...without any bullets. You will have the ability to stun or kill people....one, a dozen, or hundreds...within just a couple of minutes. No need to worry about lead, ammo magazines, the second amendment, or right-to-carry.
We will even reach a stage where the “zap” gun isn’t even referred to as a gun....thus inviting massive debate over how you’d control a modern technology....where the weapon could be pumped out via 3-D technology in a couple of minutes. The battery size and distance between the shooter and victim are the only question marks at this points.
A kid could into a school, and zap a dozen teachers to such extent...that their nervous system would be permanently screwed up.
This whole worry generated by the anti-gun crowd....is very limited...if you guage development and technology. They’ve got maybe another dozen years before they have to dump gun control and really start to worry over something that is way beyond our understanding of weapons and threats today.
If a few semi automatic rifles and thirty round magazines are no threat to tyrants, why are they working so hard to take them away?
ALSO THERE’S THIS...WHEN A PASSEL OF M-13 DRUGGED UP GANG MEMBERS TAKE IT INTO THEIR CRACK COCAINE FEVERED MINDS TO INVADE MY HOME THREATENING MY FAMILY WITH THIS KIND OF WEAPONRY I REALLY THINK I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGALLY OWN MY OWN HIGH CAPACITY FIREARM...YOU KNOW, JUST TO PROTECT MY HOME, MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN...JUST SAYIN’