Lancey, I think any intent that's not explicitly written into the constitution is always going to be debatable. And clearly our military technology has rendered obsolete the ability of small arms to overthrow our government. So if that's the only argument in favor of having them, they may as well be banned. But I believe in the personal defense argument.
That's a debatable point about the inability to overthrow the government by small arms. As previously mentioned, the military would be likely to fracture in a major social upheaval.
But even accepting the premise, the conclusion, it might as well be banned, doesn't follow. Why not, so the Right might as well not be infringed (because the government has nothing to fear)?
Oh yeah, it's all about "safety", right?