A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.
2. As someone else pointed out, early repeating rifles did exist then.
3. If the meaning of the constitution is only to be evaluated against the technology available at the time -- what does that say about the validity of the 1st or 4th amendments with modern technology?
But again, in historical context, the point of the 2A was to permit people to own the most deadly weapons of war that existed at that time.
So are a pile of stones, it’s the degree of risk to the public that matters not some arbitrary classification.
Ignoring differences is degree here isn’t enough to win the argument.
Where was that part of the decision making process in 1789?
But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.
Where? The constitution says neither. It says "Arms"
Regardless, the constitution specifically makes reference to the private ownership of cannons and warships.
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Just posted about firearms so many times used the wrong word here.