This is the actual text of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""
It doesn't any Arms, or all Arms, it merely says Arms. So, from my reading, a legislature can ban any gun it wants, as long as it doesn't ban all Arms. So, if a legislature wants to ban all guns except for the musket, by my reading, that would be perfectly Constitutional.
I'd like to know where you read into the Second Amendment that it wasn't meant to apply only to guns circa 1790. Sounds like you're reading into the Constitution your own interpretation.
It would require a special kind of ignorance about what the Constitution is to think that it was meant to be frozen in 1790.
Yes, the whole musket bore only argument would be like stating that the First Amendment only applies to religions formed before 1790 or that only text written down on parchment is free from censorship and that the state can forbid digital speeches. Insanity really.
I would l like less guns in the US but lets do things the right way as Virginia said. Do not argue what the language means, just change it damn it!
