THIS is what firearms looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written ...

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. Again that's pretty largely irrelevant

I find it quite interesting to observe the general ignorance of historical context re the Second Amendment and "a well-regulated militia" among pro-"individual rights" people. Do you actually know anything about what a militia is? About why there was one? About the late-18th century debate between Federalism and Republicanism in the context of the early USA and the Constitution? The English Civil War and the disarming of Scotland? Because all of these things are very much relevant to the intent and purpose, in historical context, of the Second Amendment. Considering the manifold ways in which society, government, and the relation of the states to the federal government, have evolved in the last 220 years? They have ceased to have any relevance whatever.

Historical context: in intent the Second Amendment is a guarantee to the several states of the right to maintain militias. It is a guarantee against an overly powerful central Federal government with a standing army. This is because of the debate between Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Republicanism; in further historical context, the Confederacy represents the logical conclusion of the Jeffersonian tendency (the idea that the Union is a loose confederation of sovereign states). The Civil War resolved the conflict in favour of the Hamiltonian idea of a strong Federal government. The citizen militias of the 18th century have long since been supplanted by the National Guard (each state's national guard being under the nominal command of the governor). Properly considered, it doesn't matter a bit what sort of weapons people 220 years ago might have envisioned as possible, because the rationale for the "citizen militia" has been obviated by the many developments in society and government that have happened since.