My actual implication is that the weapons are not the issue. Gun control is about people control. Weapons never cause problems unless acted upon. No gun ever springs forth spontaneously from anyone's closet anywhere, so its rate of fire and magazine capacity are irrelevant to RKBA.
The problem is that so much ground in the 2A arguments has already been ceded that most all of the restrictions in place are unconstitutional in any plain language reading.
The 2A doesn't mention my level of training anywhere.........maybe your constitution has more penumbras emanating. The RKBA does not imply a proper level of the training, intelligence, or wisdom required. To do so is an obvious infringement for many of us lacking legal educations to train us to think otherwise.
But since the RKBA has already been infringed to the point where we only recently have decided that it does indeed apply to individuals, and limits them to only weapons in 'common use', the proper approach to the argument is not to cede further ground to those seeking to infringe, but to promote arguments that contradict their position.
To that end, you may find an argument that fully automatic weapons are in "common use" unreasonable. But ceding that argument can only be a further erosion on an issue that is already compromised far beyond its easily understandable plain language original intent. I think that it is time to move the flag far beyond what is acceptable to the opposition when the underlying argument is so readily at hand.
Society will not collapse if fully automatic rifles are owned by private citizens any more than it did when concealed carry became a reality. Nor do the Swiss and Israeli's have a societal collapse due to their citizens possession of battle implements.
Arguing that fully automatic rifles are "in common use at the time" is an easy argument to make......just call the Quartermaster in to testify as to what was issued to the troops.
Timidity is not a useful negotiation stratagem, and enough liberty has already been squandered to those who would dictate their own morality.