Why not artillery? Hand grenades/explosives? Rocket propelled grenades? Air incendiary bombs? Fully automatic machine guns? Nuclear weapons? Lasers? I think on

Why not artillery? Hand grenades/explosives? Rocket propelled grenades? Air incendiary bombs? Fully automatic machine guns? Nuclear weapons? Lasers? I think one of the things this naive/dumb snippet (if taken at face value) is that the American obsession with the personal firearm is an arbitrary categorization in its own right, as arbitrary a line in the sand that bow/arrow would be. Your instinctual desire for "no, I want a firearm" is just a reflection of cultural values, not any practical need. If you want firepower, use any of dozens of approaches that are more potent, some easier and requiring less industrial base than a rifle/handgun. For example, a sling/catapult that flings a bomb/makeshift grenade, you just need gunpowder and rocks for that. I didn't even get into chemical weapons. Or biological weapons. But yeah whatever, your .22 cal fits in the "strict constructionalist" interpretation of the second amendment. The fact the court interpretation of the second amendment aligns with the gun industry's sweet spot of profitable convenient consumer products is just a magic, mysterious coincidence.