That is a great article, Kraig. And it matches my own experience seeing kids exposed to and trained in firearms at an early age.
If someone were to argue before the court that the NFA was unconstitutional, the court would ask if any limitation on firearm ownership was permissable.
This could be answered in one of two ways. The petitioner could answer "No", there is no permissible limit allowed under the 2nd. The court would then ask the same questions that have been raised here... "what about flame throwers, what about bombers, what about nukes... what about restrictions on felons, children"... I don's see this line of argument being very effective, even among the most conservative of judges.
The other way the question could be answered is "yes, there is a limit, but the limit on full auto weapons is too restrictive under the 2nd. The court would then ask... well, what is the limit? What is the basis, the rationale, for establishing a limit? How does the language of the constitution permit an M240 but not permit a weapon of mass destruction? Again, this is the same question I am asking in this thread. What I have heard so far is various opinions on what the limit should be, but I have not heard anything that resembles a legal basis. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I can recognize legal-reasoning when I see it... And I have not seen it yet.
The great threat we face is a new AWB, one with more teeth than the old one. Politically, an AWB will be a challenge for the anti's to enact, but it is within the realm of possibility. A more likely threat to us is a ban on high capacity magazines. The anti's have a better shot at this, and if they restrict themselves to just this, they have a reasonable chance of success. I would guess that a ban on high capacity magazines has maybe a 50-50 shot at success.
Given the threats, why would we want to squander our political capital trying to make full auto weapons more accessable? Why would we want to risk alienating more of the public?