Should the Second Ammendment right to bear arms be limited to 18th century

[DAS989]

technology weapons? Isn't that what the founding fathers had in mind? Wouldn't this be a strict interpretation of the Constitution? How can the government allow some weapons (handguns) and disallow others as being too lethal or not a personal weapon (rocket launchers, grenades, nuclear weapons)?
So you have a constitutional right to own a nuclear weapon Richard?
A well-regulated militia would be totally useless against a modern army.
Slaves would still be free and women could still vote because those amendments have been added since the 18th century and are clearly worded.
Richard the argument that you have a right to own any weapon that the government has is illogical and theirs nothing we can do to fight a modern army if it's intent on destroying us.