I don't think it is downright silly. It's already been established that "arms" doesn't cover fully automatic weapons or high explosives or many of the other tools of modern warfare. The second amendment is an anachronism that actively harms the welfare of the country. 10 shots seems sufficient.
Sorry they're "dangerous and unusual" arms that have a historical tradition of being regulated. Regardless of the particular verbiage they're seemingly outside the right that that the 2nd amendment protects.
There is no historical tradition for regulating the standard issue infantry firearm. You fundamentally fail to grasp the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Comments
It's downright silly to believe that there is room to whittle protections down to just a single shot firearm without sights or magazines.
Cite the precedent.