[dark_lord]

It doesn't really matter that the only purpose for a stinger is to shoot down aircraft. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is two-fold. It ensures that the militia (organized and unorganized) of the United States is able to:

(1) back up the regular military for defense of the US, and
(2) be able to overthrow a tyrannical government that no longer supports the will of the people via the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment was not put into the Constitution just so that people had the right to carry handguns to protect themselves from muggers. That is a right that is protected by the 2nd amendment, but that is not why the 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution. It was primarily put in so that the people could ensure that their govenment was their government and that that government governed according to the Constitution.

And, therefore, a stinger should be covered. A prior Supreme Court decision has been interpreted to mean that the 2nd amendment declares that any member of the militia should be permitted any weapon "in current use" by the US military that can be used by a single person. Whether the Constitution should be amended to more clearly deal with this issue is an entirely different question.

[presidio9]

Neither one of these arguments holds much weight, and we've heard them all before. You need a rifle, even an automatic rifle to ensure that your government can't tyranize you? Fine. After that it gets stupid. There are plenty of nuclear weapons that can be used by a single individual. Learn where the line is appropriately draw, and we will welcome you back to the world of the sane.