I don’t think possession of firearms are only for sporting purposes. I like to hunt and self-defense is certainly the most important benefit but I don’t know that the founding fathers ever intended for me to have a belt-fed machine gun, artillery, or a .50 caliber rifle.
I don’t think the founding fathers ever anticipated/imagined our population density, social issues, or the outright destructiveness of modern firearms. Everyone had a one shot musket when the constitution was written.
Where do you draw the line?
Should you be able to have a full auto AK-47 for $200? They could easily import millions of them at that price.
I have read that 85% of those who are shot by a handgun today survive. Prior to the twentieth century, 85% of such people would die, due to lack of antibiotics and modern surgical procedures.
I suggest that you read up on the use of weapons during the American Revolution and the Civil War. Anti-siege techniques included mining under a fortification and blowing it up with tons of gun powder. It also included building towers that would allow red-glowing shot to be launched into a fortification in order to destroy it by fire.
I won't get into the details of what the medical intervention looked like at the typical battle. Suffice it to say that it involved people who could operate a saw quickly.
Furthermore, just what caliber do you imagine a musket was?
If a pressing need arises for the people to have such weapons, where will they come from and what will they cost?
And why must we wait until the need is urgent?