Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Nanny]

The 2A says nothing about machine guns. That is the domain of the National Firearms Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

All guns are machines. AR-15s owned by the public are generally not machine-guns in the NFA sense. One squeeze+one bang = semiauto, not machine gun.

Dolts who carry long guns in public are attention whores who are looking for trouble. They're probably compensating for something, too.

If you want to see the thinly-veiled racism and overt idiocy of such people, head on over to northeastshooters and bring a bag of popcorn.

Nope sorry, we've heard that trigger switch dodge before. One pull one bang, still does not change the size and power and clip capacity. It is still designed for hire ratio of damage.

And again, nobody has ever given me a good argument as to why our gun laws should not adapt to changing technology. If you are going to argue strict interpretation of the 2nd and call yourself an originalist then the products of that time were single shot muskets. 

You are still trying to confuse your wants for what you actually need, nothing more. 

There is no reason for high capacity clips or military sized bullets rapid fire or single shot. 

I am glad you agree nobody should be carrying long guns in public, but even with hand guns and concealed carry, unless you have some real need, like a security guard, body guard, armored car driver, bounty hunter, or you are transporting it to the range or using it for hunting, leave ALL firearms at home.

Again, none of what I just said is a call for an all out ban on all firearms. I am saying especially when in public, your body reacts far differently under stress even if it is a mere fist fight, or trying to save someone from drowning. Training for stress shooting is what police and military have, and by the time they show up to a 911 call, they aware going in. Civilians with firearms do not have that same stress shooting training.

Name me one lagit use anyone would need outside military for an AR-15 or an Uzi? If you claim you can hit a target with those things, certainly it would be possible to do the same with a 8 clip 9mm, or a 6 bullet revolver, or a shotgun?

The only thing I see when people selfishly shout "my rights" is all they are really arguing is "I like this, but wont admit I could do the same with something else".

I know plenty of gun owners who accept this reality and there is no political party oath to legally own a firearm. So one sect of gun owners don't get to dictate gun laws on other gun owners. 

Laws have to change with changing technology, just like we don't use rotary phone laws to regulate cell phones.

It's not a "trigger switch." The title of this thread asks a question about "machine guns" and uses the AR-15 as an example. In non-selectable fire models, the ARF is not a machine gun. An ARF with selctable fire - e.g. semi, burst, full auto - is a machine gun. Rate of fire per trigger pull is what defines a machine gun. 

"You are still trying to confuse your wants for what you actually need, nothing more." - no, I am correcting misuse of a term.

"There is no reason for high capacity clips or military sized bullets rapid fire or single shot." - what is a "military sized bullet?" Bullet size is defined by diameter. 9mm and .357 bullets have the same diameter but are fired from very different cartridges. The .357 packs more powder and more power. 

The obvious reason for law-abiding citizens to possess high capacity magazines is because stress-fire reduces accuracy, particularly with handguns. Point and shoot at center mass is how handguns work - these are not long range shots. High capacity mags have downside, though. They're heavy and bulky. Uncomfortable to carry concealed. A small 5-chamber revolver is more comfortable to conceal but you're limited to 5 rounds. 

Rifles, shotguns, and handguns are tools for different uses. Rifles pack the most power and accuracy. Shotguns are good for hitting moving game at short range. Handguns are for short range against smaller targets.  Force = mass x acceleration. Rifles send a larger projectile faster, which improves accuracy at longer ranges. To suggest that a 9mm handgun can substitute for, say, a .308 rifle round is like saying the Toyota Yaris could sub for moving van.

I agree that laws need to evolve. The way that laws evolve is through legal precedent in the courts. SCOTUS affirmed that 2A is an individual right and it applies to arms commonly in use. It does not apply to machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other NFA items. 

So the reason no one can tell you where the 2A 'says' you can carry a machine gun is that the 2A does not apply to machine guns. The NFA applies to machine guns. 

Is that clear now?