"Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS ..."<quoted text>
Non one in a civilian setting NEEDS a weapon of war to protect themselves or their home.
Commonsense > you!
WHERE in the Second Amendment is that matter of 'need' addressed in even the most oblique way?
In that time period when the U.S. Bill of Rights was composed, the People had EVERY terrible implement of the soldier at their disposal WITHOUT RESTRICTION.
So what's YOUR problem with that today? Feeling like wet panties time?
And one other thing: YOU, right along with a whole slew of other inveterate bed wetters, VERY SERIOUSLY neglect to consider a WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER matters which aren't addressed, if only that they would COMPLETELY shutdown your piss-poor argument.
Are you ready?
1. The COMPLETELY IDIOTIC 'war on drugs.'
2. Psychotropic drugs
Without the first, and OUTLAWING the latter, virtually NONE of what this worlds suffers would be taking place.