We found a place to agree, since 2008 that is the ruling of the SCOTUS. Every ruling prior to that stated the opposite, so this is not about Founding Fathers or original intent or the basis of previous rulings, its just about this current SCOTUS changing the definition.

Since 2008, you are correct, but not in the 132 previous years.

I mentioned Richard Posner, he is a conservative, he is the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century. Read this article if you are curious.

The setting of the Bill of Rights was that slavery was a contentious issue. In places in the South the black slaves out numbered the white slave owners. To keep the slaves from rebelling the States formed militias to suppress them.

As outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The 2nd Amendment says that the Federal Government cannot disarm these State militias, that are well regulated as stated above.

Without this provision, the Bill of Rights wouldn't of passed at all.

It wasn't until the 1970s that this idea that the 2nd amendment meant everyone can have any gun at any time. In fact Former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 pushed back, he said “[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This is not some tree hugging cheese eating surrender monkey, this is a staunch Republican placed on the bench by Nixon.

But lets think about this, would you say that anyone can own a bazooka? How about a howitzer in their front yard? How about a nuclear arm? Shoulder fired rocket launcher perhaps?

If you say 'no, of course not' then great, we agree that there needs to be limitations we just disagree where you draw the line.

Now keep this in mind, my position is not that the Constitution says people cannot have guns. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it says absolutely nothing about bubba and his buddies running around the Michigan woods. Its completely silent on the matter. It also says nothing about being able to eat apples off your tree in the backyard. It doesn't address the issue at all, therefore as far as the Constitution is concerned, its legal.

That is because the USA has a system of laws that unless its specifically illegal, then its legal opposed to restrictive legal system in which unless its specifically legal then its illegal.

You can have guns, but its not historically a 2nd amendment right of an average citizen, except for in 2008. In which case, you are right, the SCOTUS has spoken, I guess anyone can have a bazooka.