"Or...we can agree that the "well regulated" part of the 2A does allow for the people to make adjustments to the level of firepower a militia member can access."
A ha! We cannot! We cannot because the definition of "well regulated" is NOT what you describe. Please note the last paragraph of the following....http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
quote [The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <email@example.com>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.] end quote
What the founders were refering to in "well regulated" was a MILITIA that was in "proper working order", or trained and ready, as ..."being necessary to the security of a free state...." (please note the word FREE!!) . They then went on to note that because it's THE PEOPLE who are that milita, then their "....right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well regulated DOES NOT mean telling the militia what kind of arms it can and cannot have and/or accessories to those arms.
Now, if you want to ask me then if people should be allowed to have fully automatic firearms then I say YES, as long as they are not criminal or insane. Machine gun or not, you STILL need a human being to pull the trigger, and the responsibility for the use of that weapon falls on him and him alone.
When you get into the realm of expolsives and other unstable items who's very storage is matter of public safety then that's another matter.
What else you wanna know?