[Bogey78O]

You missed the point. At the time of the ratification there was no concept that thre ought to be a limit on what a person can defend themselves with. The anti-gun nuts keep making a specious argument to win an argument they have no hope of winning logically.

[JediJones]

You missed my point. If you continue to interpret the amendment that way in modern times, that means the ordinary citizen should be able to go to the corner store and buy a nuclear bomb. Clearly interpreting the amendment that broadly with the modern weapons we have now would be chaotic. You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.