Originally Posted by MteK
That's your completely subjective interpretation of the 2nd amendment and clearly proven wrong by the fact that the original Assault Weapons ban was not overturned, but simply expired.
Even Justice Antonin Scalia agrees:
"So you think you know the 2nd amendment?
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."
Ofcourse..the constitution is a living, evolving body of law..But the couterpoint to your point is that we exist under a state where the "militia" is disbanded but always prepared to band..as a society always having to stay vigilante..the terror acts of 9/11 case and point when the "security of a free state" was overtly challenged.
That interpretation will never waiver to the specific intent of the framers; to allow arms as the means to defend ourselves.