[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.)

[coloradan]

The Framers even anticipated technological advancement, by spelling out the patent office.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Going along with this idea, "well-regulated" not meaning "ruled" as liberals want to see it, but "equipped/armed".