This is a nice dodge, but you sidestep some other critical factors.

First, the Framers couldn't anticipate all of the modern-day weapons that we currently have at our disposal. So for either side to say, "Oh, this is what they would have thought of this..." is purely speculative -- and disingenuous.

Many of the Framers also probably believed homosexuality was a sin. So does that mean same-sex marriage should be rendered universally illegal "Cuz the Framers said so..."? Why do we selectively base our contemporary decision-making on what we assume the Framers might-have-or-might-not-have done in Scenarios X, Y, and Z?

Secondly, are you suggesting that only members of the military should be able to own a majority of different types of weapons? Who decides which types of weapons, if any, civilians are allowed to own? Much of the attention seems to be on AR-15s and other overly-militarized types of weapons. But what about handguns? How about pistols? Where do you draw the line...and do you only draw it with gun ownership rights applying specifically to members of the armed forces?

Let me ask you this: Would you be open to a compromise where licensing and training is universally required for all American gunowners -- but, in turn, ownership of most guns (the ones deemed to be legal) and ammunition would be exempt from special taxation?