isn't whether the founders could or could not have envisioned such a weapon somewhat of a moot point? the right to bear arms wasn't established simply because g

isn't whether the founders could or could not have envisioned such a weapon somewhat of a moot point? the right to bear arms wasn't established simply because guns are a nice thing to have but as a means of ensuring that the government could be held in check by we the people. that doesn't work if the people are limited to flintlocks and the government has literally anything they can develop with practically unlimited scope. i don't really like guns at all, i find them loud and boring really but it's strange to frequently see people who argue that the spirit of the constitution must be interpreted further than the exact language only do so in a one sided manner that just so happens to align with their preexisting beliefs.