I had thought the "well regulated militia" was now the national Guard -a citizen army.It's about the reasons and arguments for the second. Gun rights advocates ignore/evade the fact that most of the founders arguments about liberty and the second dealt with the danger of a standing army. They were not arguing that if individuals were not permitted to walk the streets with guns or own artillery that the government might become tyrannical. They were arguing that without a well trained and prepared citizen militia there would be a demand for standing armies.
We have a standing army and so any sober and honest person has to consider the changed context. Of course, that excludes grind and others. A standing army does not and should not nullify the second. But if one truly shares the founders fear of a loss of liberty then your focus should be on reducing the size and power of the military not whether citizens should be able to own a tank.
You can own a machine gun but it is regulated. According to some who demand an extreme and likely unworkable reading of the second amendment this must be an unconstitutional infringement. I don't think it is and I don't have much problem with allowing it under the existing scheme. An unregulated trade in such weapons mixed with the black market created by our war on drugs, I fear, would have very negative results. I might be wrong, but as a libertarian I'll prioritize and demand an end to the drug war before we test that.
Not the US Armed Forces, which are not a citizens Army ( recall GI Joe = Government Issued Joe).
The whole discussion is really beond my ability to neatly follow (though interesting).
I do agree with the libertarian ideas that any prohibition invariably leads to a black market;
as people do want the guns and drugs.