You don't need to convince me that there are quite a few out there that want to ban any and all firearms, believe me I recognize this fact.
I do not refuse to accept the concept of an absolute right, I recognize that the issue is not so simple black and white. I take two lines of reasoning on this that I will explain,
#1: we have to ask the question of how the 2nd amendment applies to modern weapons. They didn't have RPGs and nuclear weapons back then, they didn't have fully automatic pistols, etc etc. Do you think the founders would have advocated private citizens owning such weapons? Do you think the 2nd amanedment guarantees you the right to own a nuke? If you don't think so then you are recognizing that it isn't so black and white.
#2: When I read the 2nd amendment and try to examine it I find that there is no definitions section for the bill of rights. Now this may sound silly but if you read laws today you often find a definitions section at the beginning of the chapter. Legal definitions are often needed because legal language does not always follow commonly spoken language and it helps to clear up questions about the law that will be raised. For example one could ask the question of what they mean by "bear arms"? What qualifies as a "well regulated militia"? When it says shall not be infringed does that mean a dangerous convict can own one, or can a 10 year old buy one because denying them is infringing at some level.
And no you cannot just say the answer is common sense, if legal language was so common sense you wouldn't need lawyers in this world.
Your thoughts?
The courts have already defined the answers you seek. Private citizens are permitted to possess the same types of weapons the infantry foot soldier would carry on the battlefield.
Now, to make the case for or against explosives, you have to dig deeper.
There are weapons of mass destruction, strategic weapons, and tactical weapons. In most analyses of the types of weapons we as citizens can own, there is one important factor: what weapons do the people who threaten us possess?
If the mass majority of crimes committed with firearms involve handguns, then we need those. If a large number use AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles, then we need those (AR is no more effective in overall lethality than a hunting rifle, and it's out-matched in caliber by almost any hunting rifles larger than .223). If criminals use shotguns, we need those, too. The 2nd is NOT about hunting and target shooting. Those are legitimate needs for firearms, but they should never be the center of the debate.
Nukes and rocket launchers? We should NOT own nukes as individuals -- WMD is never considered a defensive weapon for individual use. If the threat rises to that level, then someone is pissed at a LOT more people than just me! (I hope!!)
Rocket launchers? If you lived in Somalia, and the people threatening your life carried those, then I'd say yes (given we had the same Constitutional law there)! Here in the US? Not too many RPG attacks in the news, so for now, no need for them, and no need to make them legal to own.
See where this is headed? There is no litmus test or concrete factors that we can apply to the law and thereby make a list of weapons to allow or deny to the individual. The weapons we should be allowed to own are dictated by the threats we face. Cops face criminals everyday and need adequate firepower to compete (and hopefully surpass) the firepower of the crooks.
You and I face the same threats as Cops, so we should be allowed at least the same weapons they justify for their own use. That includes body armor and greater than 10 rd mags.
The Constitution is not specific for a reason....
Have you ever been in the military? If so, you're familiar with regulations. Regulations are written at the JCS and headquarters level in very broad terms. They outline the scope, purpose, and rationale behind the regs as well as the objectives they intend to meet.
Once the next tier of the military gets that, be it combatant commands or their support units, those organizations IMPLEMENT the regs by doing what you said: write definitions, assign units responsibilities, identify material and personnel requirements, and so forth. They do all that to meet the intent of the vague, broad, and general higher-level guidance.
Look at the Constitution as if it is the Joint Chiefs. It outlines the overall goal of what it sets out to accomplish. The legislature then enacts more detailed, but still higher-level,federal laws to require the states and individuals to comply with those laws.
The states then write their own laws to implement programs, enforcement units, budgets, training, etc. to stipulate in detail HOW we are going to meet the intent of the federal laws. When laws are ambiguous, we still have to look at the spirit, and not just the letter, of the law to see if one is in compliance.
The only part of the Constitution that lists details, like how old a President must be at a minimum, voting age, and all that are in the amendments, because people saw a need to standardize some requirements instead of letting each state make up their own rules for those specific clauses.
Putting the details of every law in the Constitution to the level needed to implement the laws would be impossible. Even if we tried, as situations change, the Constitution would need constant ratification to make those changes.
The founders made it difficult, but not impossible, to change the document for a specific reason. They knew they were not perfect. They were wise enough and humble enough to understand they couldn't think of everything. They hoped future generations would preserve what was working and correct what was not. This document was so important, they required lawmakers to go though a very difficult process of state ratification and super majority votes before they could change it.
No founder thought about, or cared about, semi-auto firearms or nukes. They left the details to us. What they did spell out is that the individual has a right to defend himself and his family from all threats, including a government run amok. Remember, they had just finished fighting the most powerful government on the planet over the very issues they included in the Declaration of Independence.
You have described why these discussions and debates continue ... because people with opposing viewpoints always exist. The beauty of our government over all others before it is we can voice our dissent and work within the system to effect change without the need to resort to violence. Look at Egypt and Libya and even Iraq. It took full-on warfare to topple these dictators. An election was not going to do that. We are way ahead of the other forms of gov't just in that one example alone!