No, the founders didn't have suicide vests in mind when they wrote the second amendment, bedstuy. I'd say that you are probably the only person in the world who thinks that it does, but even you know that you are blowing smoke here, so I'd guess that it's about zero people who draw that conclusion.
What weapons did the founders have in mind, angus?
Let's assume that they had in mind only weapons that had already been invented, for starters. James Madison, for example, was a political theorist. He also studied Latin and religion. It is unlikely that he had a propensity for theorizing about photon torpedoes or nuclear warheads, or even suicide belts. I think that it's a safe bet that the other authors could be described similarly.
There are a number of law students and licensed attorneys who post here regularly. If we wanted to take this thread as a mental exercise, they might have some insight. The last two high-profile cases were Heller and McDonald. Both cases strengthened the individual right argument over the collective right theory. (I think the collective right made more sense to me when I was a university student learning of the constitution, but who knows? we all evolve and I'm not sure what the current consensus is anyway) Either way, it is clear that the framers want you--either you collectively via your legislature or you individually, depending upon your interpretation--to be able to protect yourself against the very real possibility of an English invasion. In that frame of reference, you might ask the question, "What would madison et al. think if I had a device that killed the English invaders but would also kill me?" I think Madison would tell me to rethink my defense strategy. He might give me the cell phone number of a good Brown Bess Musket merchant, if cell phones existed. Of course they didn't, so it would not have occurred to him to provide me with such a number. Nor would it have occurred to him to advise me regarding suicide vests.
We could look into the Supreme Court opinion in some recent cases. In McDonald, Alito wrote for the majority opinion and Stevens wrote the dissent. A careful read of both of their statements would suggest to me (and I assume any literate person, lawyer or not) that, although they disagreed on the particulars of that case,
neither of them would consider the suicide vest a fundamental right.
