If I am wealthy enough to buy a M1A1 tank, along with the HEAT and Depleted Uranium penetrator rounds, should I be able to do so? What about an F-15 with a load of 20mm shells, JDAMs, and AIM-120 missiles? What about a 50 gallon drum of binary chemical weapon? Or how about I set up my own bio-warfare lab - that would be cool. [sarcasm ends here]
No sane person will believe that the 2nd amendment protects our right to equip our own personal army. In the early days of the republic, Congress closely regulated the privateers (privately owned warships), their operations and movements were highly infringed. Congress did away with them completely after a short time... within the lifespan of many of the founding fathers. Did Jefferson, Adams, or Madison speak out against disarming the privateers, denying them the RKBA? Uh... No.
There is a line between an "arm" which is protected by the 2nd, and a weapon of war which is not. A 38 revolver is clearly an arm. A 105 mm gun is clearly weapon of war. Where is that line? For all practical purposes it is full auto, and/or 50 caliber.
Now for me, that line seems pretty reasonable. If we get through this whole mess with the right to own 30 round mags for our 5.56 and 7.62 semi-auto rifles (even though they look evil), I will be pretty happy. We don't need to be making fantasy arguments in favor of full auto weapons. If the line is not drawn on full auto, where is the line separating Arms from Weapons of War? It sounds like some of you are saying there is no line... Is that what you are saying?