[sourcery]

Because the Second Amendment is prefaced by the Militia Clause, it forces the interpretation of the "arms" which individuals have the uninfringeable right to keep and bear to specifically include those which would be useful in defense of "the security of a free state." In other words, military grade weapons.

And SCOTUS ruled exactly that, in US vs. Miller.

[MacNaughton]

11 Because the Second Amendment is prefaced by the Militia Clause, it forces the interpretation of the "arms" which individuals have the uninfringeable right to keep and bear to specifically include those which would be useful in defense of "the security of a free state." In other words, military grade weapons.

And SCOTUS ruled exactly that, in US vs. Miller.

Then how do you reconcile the 1934 National Firearm Act with the SCOTUS Miller decision?

[xkaydet65]

In the 1870s and 80s a trail drive’s drovers were likely better armed than a platoon of US Cavalry. In 1910 while the Army issued ‘03s, a civilian could own a Remington Model 8 semi auto rifle. ( see Warren Oates’ weapon in Ride the High Country, or Pierce Brosnan’s in AMC’s The Son.)

[KarlInOhio]

Add to that the Congressional power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”: essentially government permission to make war on foreign countries and take their stuff. You aren’t going to do that with a single shot musket, so the founders must have expected individuals to own cannons - the 18th century’s weapon of mass destruction. I want my own WMD.

[ought-six]

A militia is wholly dependent on armed citizens, and thus cannot exist without armed citizens. Armed citizens, on the other hand, are not at all dependent on a militia, and can exist without a militia.