The fallacy goes something like this: There were no semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines when the founding fathers were alive, and they did not write the 2nd Amendment to allow them. Therefore, civilians should only be guaranteed the right to own flint-lock, muzzleloading rifles.
the police, military, and federal-agency statute enforcers will also
have muzzleloaders? Well, that would be nice, but there was no intent
in the 2nd amendment to limit technology to the people, and they were
aware of and benefited from a game-changing technology in their time.
The American civilian militia members were using privately-owned rifled weapons to
provide accurate fire against the British. The rifle did not entirely
replace the smoothbore, because the rifle took much more time to reload,
but it did allow small numbers of Rebels to effectively harass soldiers
on the move and incapacitate commanders in pitched battles.
thing, the 2nd amendment addresses arms. It doesn't say sporting arms
or self-defense arms. It means weapons of war, including cannons and
tanks (which are still legal by statute to own, not just natural law).
If SWAT has fully-auto arms when they're kicking in doors, or the USA military is carrying them around in our neck of the woods, then so should we. Parity to prevent tyranny.