Neither are specious arguments.
Yet specious arguments are the stock in trade of the anti-gun Grabberz lobby.
Until recently, they have prevailed more often than seems reasonable in a system originally based on individual freedom. So apparently specious arguments ARE a useful stratagem. Otherwise penumbras would cease to emanate so profusely.
Would it be acceptable to you if United States citizens were permitted to possess military weapons on the same terms and subject to the same conditions that apply to Swiss and Israeli citizens' possession of such weapons (see above)? Gun control advocates might well argue that the reason it works in Switzerland and Israel is the governmental control applied to such possession.
No. Their laws/rules/restrictions are not backed by a 2A right. So their rules/restrictions make no sense in our legal context.
That does nothing to undermine the observation of the rational behavior of their individual private citizens in relation to the legal systems they use.
This is where a legal education becomes an impediment. My point was that all of those swiss reservists who chose to keep their issued weapon after leaving service do not later go on to cause societal chaos. That's not a legal argument, it is a simple observation that completely undermines any public safety BS. Guns don't cause individuals to run amok. No firearms of any sort were used to bring down the twin towers - nor to defend against it.
If anyone were really concerned with safety, rather than be gun grabberz they would look to ban automobiles and abortions. Instead they choose to spend energy to infringe a constitutionally protected right.
Bogging down in irrelevant minutia is how 200 years of emanating penumbras has undermined public trust in the legal system.
I'm not trying to be critical.
That's okay. I like arguing as much as any real lawyer. I am just not practiced nor formally educated with a state approved certification and license(i.e., fees not paid to guildmasters).
If I were practiced and educated and licensed I might have more swiftly directed the argument back to the more relevant point that I sought to make. The Peril of Scalia lies in defining "in common use at the time". That seems to be carefully unexplored brand-new territory. In common use BY WHOM? Granny at the retirement village in Florida? [I would expect that to be the position of the Grabberz.]
2A is not about hunting squirrels at my pappy's pecan grove. And it is obvious the founders had little trust in formal government, and much more trust in the private individual - so unlike today's gun grabberz would have us beleive.
"It is not that simple!" Well, yes. It is. We have rights. The grabberz want to take them via government. Kinda exactly opposite any plain understanding of original intent. And if the gun grabberz want the constitution to "live and breath" again when it serves them, then it needs to take into account that fully automatic weapons are now "in common use at the time". That is not "extreme", nor is it radical.
[I have used this conversation experimentally on several friends, who were at a complete loss to making a rational counter-argument. A couple reverted immediately into name calling, which is always a sign of success. The more thoughtful went silent. An even better indicator of success. ]
In reality there is little that can be done with a full auto AK or AR that cannot be done with a semi-auto variant. Full auto does excel at wasting ammo and missing the target[ in unskilled hands] - perhaps we might in reality improve public safety if full auto were legal.
But reality is often anathema to a useful legal argument, so apologies for digression down the rabbit hole. Wasckilly wabbits......