I heard you mention on a podcast episode recently that the framers _did_ believe that individuals possessing military weapons would be protected by the 2nd Amendment (protected from Congress of course). And you mentioned the Virginia Militia standards at the time as support for this.
Such a large part of the gun-control debate these days involves opinions to the contrary. Most gun-control _and_ gun-rights supporters believe the idea of individuals owning cruise missiles, tanks, or nukes is absurd and simply can’t be protected (from congress) by the 2nd amendment. Most would say the founders couldn’t have imagined modern weaponry and we couldn’t reasonably expect them to support individual rights in these modern death machines, for militia purposes or any other.
Unorganized jumble of questions:
Can you elaborate on this topic?
And share your historical, legal, constitutional, personal, and any-other-kind-of thoughts?
Were cannons and battleships the biggest, baddest types of weapons back when the 2nd Amendment was written?
Was it uncommon for individuals to have them?
Did prominent thinkers back then ever publish their thoughts about these things?
What about as the 19th-century progressed, and the 20th, do you know of any significant court opinions (or something) dealing with this?
In terms of originalism and the early discussions of the 2nd amendment, can we find anything useful there?
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHGf3D22uF0&t=1373s&ab_channel=Nonzero at around the 18:10 mark to hear Robert Wright reference a mysterious “systematic survey” of what was meant by “bearing arms” back then.
BONUS:continue watching the above video for a deliciously twisted back-and-forth about incorporation.