Your statement is so fuzzy I can see three different possibilities in it.
1. You are asserting that I am projecting my own assumptions.
2. You are asserting that you are against the notion that founders would support assault weapons.
3. You are in Favor of the notion that the founders would have supported assault weapons.
If it is number one, the assumptions are axiomatic and based on the presumption that the founders were not complete idiots, as they would have to be to allow automatic citizenship to anyone who can sneak across our border against our wishes.
If it is number two, then I would argue the founders were in favor of the citizenry being able to defend themselves, their state, and their sister states from attack by a tyrannical government, and would therefore understand the weapons to be the latest Military grade killing tools.
If it is number three, then I agree with you.
I am sorry you had trouble with it. Here's what I was saying:
You argued that the historical situation had changed--that because we now have "loyalty lacking transients," we have to look at the Founders' historical context to determine what they really meant, rather than interpret what they said in light of changing circumstances. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," you wrote.
I'm just pointing out that this is exactly the same argument liberals often use against the RKBA. To wit, the arms the Founders were familiar with were muskets and single-shot pistols, so we should look at the context to determine what arms they meant people could own. "It makes no sense to use a standard that had a very different meaning during a prior age," they say to support their efforts to ban semiautomatic weapons.
So I was asking: do you agree with them? Or is the only principle you go by that of whether you like the result (and then try and call that the "conservative" position)?