So, should any gunpowder based weapon be available for purchase by civilians without any restrictions? We've had this discussion before until it was locked.
Thus, I can live under a flight path to the airport with a L-70 Bofors 40mm, if I can afford it? Or one of those WWII vehicles with four 5O BMGs mounted?
They sure would help defending your neighborhood.
But if Ma Deuces were easily available - guess what - they would be in gang hands very quickly. The risk of such weaponery is irrelevant to the argument only if your view is based on a discredited view of how the Constitution is interpreted. Remember the Constitution has changed as morays changed. A strict constructionist might pine for days of slaves and no women voting.
No limits at all? We've seen that the Swiss and Japanese arguments have been flawed. The argument that laws don't regulate speech on the Federal level has been discredited. If we want to maintain gun rights, cliches and incorrect arguments won't cut it.
So if the only argument is repeating 'shall not' over and over again without resort to context, this argument is becoming worthless - esp. if it is 'get ready for the revolution thread'. How about this - we had a presidency that many disagreed with - for some its policies were threats to the BOR. No one had to drive around with a Ma Deuce - we had an election. Saying this particular presidency is a call for Ma Deuces behind your Hummer is a specious practical argument. In 2012, if Obama flops, the Congress changes.
Justing saying 'gun' - not convincing.