Do you think (not arguing, genuinely wondering) that the 2nd amendment should ever be amended again to acknowledge that the weapons allowed when it was written, are far different from those manufactured today?
So you are saying that the constitution was written in the time of black powder rifles so the 2nd amendment was not intended to allow private citizens to have what many call "assault weapons"? I believe that is what you are getting at.
Here are my thoughts:
In 1776 the rifles that everyone used for hunting were the rifles used by the military. If fact, many took their own rifle with them to fight the war. The technology was not what we have today but private citizens had weapons that were just as capable as the military. There was balance. At no time were private citizens restricted by law to muskets while only the military had the Kentucky Long Rifle for example.
Today, the US Army uses the M-16 and other countries use the AK-47 or something similar as a standard issue weapon. Both the full auto M-16A1 and the 3 round burst M-16A2 are heavily regulated and not normally allowed for private ownership. All fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and just anyone can't get one without a federal license. The US Army moved away from full auto and went with rifles that would either fire 1 round per trigger pull or optionally could fire 3 rounds per trigger pull because full auto is incredibly inaccurate and leaves you out of ammo in seconds after missing your target.
An example rifle that is available to the general public is the AR-15. It looks like an M-16 but only fires 1 bullet at a time. Full auto & 3 round burst is not an option. All in all, the military & law enforcement may have a slight rate of fire advantage but I am going to go ahead and call it an even match.
Then like now there is a pretty even playing field between the average infantry soldier and a private citizen. Yes I am ignoring tanks, missiles, crew served weapons like .50 cal machine guns and an individual going head to head with a military unit would quickly be turned into a pink mist but I am talking 2nd amendment weapons.
As technology has increased over the years, better weapons are now in the hands of evil people. These people may be terrorists, criminals, foreign militaries or even the local police chief who just cracks some night and starts shooting up the town. The 2nd amendment was perfectly designed to allow the private individual to protect himself, his family, his town, and his country from these attackers. Should you be limited to single shot hunting rifles? Only if all the evil people above are also restricted and that can never be the case.
So I guess you are asking should the 2nd amendment allow military type weapons? It did when it was written and it should now. You have to be able to defend yourself against the guns that are out there. I don't think any changes need made.
Please note I left out machine guns, that I referred to as crew served weapons. That is not a weapon for an individual infantry soldier and beyond the capability for a single individual to properly maintain and deploy. I excluded tanks, missiles, grenades and all the things that gun rights supporters are always falsely accused of wanting because I do not believe the 2nd amendment intended to include these items.
Amendment II; Constitution of the United States of America:
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.
That’s pretty clear. The right is granted to The People, not to the State. In fact, the State is prohibited from infringing the right. What did it mean to be a “well regulated Militia”? Well, the Militia consisted of every able bodied man between the ages of 15 and 60 not inclusive. So, what did well regulated mean?
To regulate was to make regular, meaning, orderly, disciplined and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock. In the context of human beings, to regulate them is to bring a person or body of persons to order; in military terms, it would mean to become well trained and “regular” in the military and martial arts.
In the pre-Revolutionary period, in military parlance, regulation was near synonymous with training and drilling, with the goal of regulating or making regular. To this day, the term regular soldier is a military term that means, precisely, professional soldier. Not a conscript or draftee; not a militiaman; not a part-time soldier. All of these might become more regulated, but they could never or seldom hope to achieve the level of professionalism of the regular soldier unless and until they lived the life of a soldier full-time.
In pre-Revolutionary times, the most awesome and feared soldier on any potential field of battle was the red-coated British Regular; he was referred to as a Regular because of his utter predictability. He would not only exhibit good order in his marching, uniform and equipment, but he could be absolutely counted upon to not break ranks under fire. Any unit of Regulars that would be put into the field by the British could be expected to be a virtual killing machine, because of their extreme regulation. They would be referred to as a well regulated military unit.
So, in the language of the day, the authors of Amendment II intended the citizen-soldier – meaning, able bodied men aged between 15 and 60 to be well regulated, meaning, precisely, well trained in the use of military arms. I submit that one cannot become well trained in the use of military arms in the absence of military arms.