A string of comments was begun by Stringsinger:

"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns."

and was answered:

The present laws controlling guns in the US ( 1933 and 1968, primarily) do not allow the items listed for private ownership except under special circumstances. Thus the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the ownership of those specific items, as determined by the US courts.

Therefore, Stringsinger cannot use them is talking about the 2nd amendment rights issue- unless he means to say that we SHOULD have ownership of them!

I believe that Stringsinger's point was that the colonial style militia would be irrelevant in today's world, where an invader or externally supported revolutionary force surely would have hand grenades, bombs, AK47s, and machine guns--not to mention tanks and air support, at least in the case of invaders. The defense of the United States against those sorts of forces must be by the Army, National Guard, Air Force, and Navy, properly equipped and trained, rather than a local "scratch" volunteer organization like the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment, who would just get slaughtered.

Dave Oesterreich