[takenoprisoner]

While the 2nd Amendment does not define or limit arms, it is inferred to mean whatever arms are available. And not only does the 2nd Amendment not define the sort of arms, it also does not restrict modifying of available arms.

Meanwhile, I don't think other milita members will give a rats ass what weapon I bring to fight so long as I show up ready to fight.

[smoketree]

Yep. Such extreme limiting language is laughable. Do the grabbers mean that if in a shooting war you lose your approved weapon you cannot use one of the enemy's if the barrel is less than 18 inches?
Or if it has a magazine for more than ten rounds we can't use it to fight some enemy?
It's craziness.

[robertpaulsen]

"While the 2nd Amendment does not define or limit arms"

Correct, it doesn't.

Nor does the 1st define or limit speech. Nor does the the 4th define or limit "unreasonable". Nor does the 6th define or limit "speedy". Nor does the 8th define or limit "excessive".

See a pattern here? Now, guess who defines or limits those rights? Yep. The U.S. Supreme Court.

[Redcloak]

While the 2nd Amendment does not define or limit arms, it is inferred to mean whatever arms are available. And not only does the 2nd Amendment not define the sort of arms, it also does not restrict modifying of available arms.

This argument was made by the majority on the DC Circuit; specifically to squash the specious argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects flintlocks. They point out that the weapons mentioned in the 2nd Militia Act were state of the art weapons, not antiques. They presumed that the intent of the Congress was to keep the militia armed with the most modern weapons the People could afford. Since members of that Congress also drafted the 2nd Amendment, it is logical to assume that they would want this technological development to continue under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. (And IIRC, the DC Circuit did speculate on how the Supreme Court might have ruled had Miller been represented.)

[steve-b]

While the 2nd Amendment does not define or limit arms

Actually, Miller concluded (correctly) that the militia clause provides guidance as to what sort of weapons constitute "arms". (The Supreme Court went astray in its specific finding of fact because the defendant failed to present the evidence that would have supported the conclusion that a sawed-off shotgun is indeed an "arm" of militia utility.)

Note that this neatly disposes of the "argument" that the militia clause must mean what the gun-grabbers want it to mean because, darnit, it has to mean something or it wouldn't be there.