> The evidence that these guns existed is scant

Yes, but the idea of them existing was enough to interest Congress, who tried to order 100 of them. They backed out of their order due to the cost. If they had existed at a reasonable price, one can assume Congress would have gone through with their order.

> The world of the Founding Fathers in 1788 was a world very similar to the world of 1688 and 1588

You're discounting the technological advancement of that era just because we've had more inventions in recent history. Innovation happened slower back then, but there were still large improvements in technology during the Founding Fathers' lives. Ben Franklin, who was one of the Founding Fathers himself, invented a lot of stuff during his life.

> You are looking at this with 21st century eyes

So are you. One of the reasons American citizens haven't had to bear their arms (some exceptions[1][2][3][4]) is because we have them and are able to use them if necessary. Few people are willing to die for a cause, and far fewer are willing if they have reason to expect their death will be in vain, and for their side to lose.

People are only willing to give up the rights they have now because they don't know what it was like without them.

> I am pretty sure that if you walked into the Constitution Convention of 1787 and laid out an AR15 and said, "One day a young man with this weapon will walk into a school and kill 20 children and 6 staff members with one of these and mass shootings happen with regularity." I am pretty sure the 2nd Amendment would be a lot different and a lot more clear.

We definitely agree that the Founding Fathers would be horrified by modern society. However, I don't think their reaction would be to limit firearm ownership. (Probably, they would probably want to know why tax dollars are going to the federal gov't to create public schools and why adults failed the kid) Would they have also changed the First Amendment to limit religion to Christian/Puritan variants? Probably not; they created the Bill of Rights to acknowledge rights that no human can morally take from another person, since the rights come from God*.

Ultimately, we can't prevent others from causing harm. Making black powder is easy and cheap, and tossing some fireworks in a pressure cooker or a pipe is something anyone can do. If we could hypothetically remove all guns from the entire world, badguys would cause harm through other methods, such as bombings or vehicle attacks[5]. We need to fix the root causes of these evils, not ban the weapon(s) they currently use so we can feel good about doing something.

-

Lastly, I'm assuming you made this mistake in good faith but implying that our priority for minimizing mass murders should be banning AR-15 style rifles is misleading. Most mass shootings are committed with handguns[6]. So why not ban handguns then? Because in America, guns are used in a defensive manner far more often than they're used to murder people[7][8].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff (not an endorsement, but it's relevant)

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Korean_...

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

[6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-...

[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[8]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

> [whereas] …By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; > > […therefore] That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; > > That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

The defense was collective (and legally regulated!), not individual. The part about the standing army is worth noting as well. The police weren't invented until 1829 century by Robert "Bobby" Peele. So how did they stop crime? Sherifs would round up a posse as needed, towns would have night watchmen, and areas would have militias. A standing army was a centralized military that was controlled by the king instead of by local forces. In the US, standing armies were super unpopular, but Washington and others recognized that practically speaking, you can't win a war with a militia (the equivalent of a police department). The founders said negative things about standing armies but couldn't bring themselves to ban them.

In the American context, there were two particular cases people worried about that the Second Amendment was meant to address, besides just having a non-federal military.

First, in border territories with Native Americans, every eligible white male would be drafted into the militia. If the Federal government wanted to cede some territory to the Indians against the wishes of the residents (ala Israeli settlers in Gaza), it could just make a law to disband the militia. This would effectively cede the territory because they wouldn't be able to prevent raiding. Not a likely move by the federal government, but possible and something to prevent.

Second, in slave territories, every eligible white male would be drafted into the slave patrol. If the Federal government wanted to force the end of slavery, it could just disband the slave patrols and the specter of slave revolts would make the continuation of slavery impossible. This was a real possibility and one that slavery supporters wanted to cut off.

So, is the second amendment an individual right or a collective right? It is an individual right to participate in the armed forces.

Why does such a right matter? Look at Hong Kong right now. So far, only the local police are involved. In Shenzhen, just across the water, there are enormous numbers of PLA troops hanging around and doing "exercises" but so far only the local police have been involved in the protest clashes. To win a revolution requires the organized people with guns to decide to go with the masses rather than their political leaders, and that requires the armed forces to be composed of and identity with the people. The HK police have already begun to turn against HKers. The PLA does not give one single crap about HK and if they come in, they will smash the city to the ground.

The only way to prevent tyranny in the US is for the armed forces to think of themselves as "Americans" and not "The President's Army". To the extent that we have crime problems in cities, it is because the people who are shooting and get shot don't trust the police to solve their problems, so they do it themselves. There must be unity between the masses and the people with guns for there to be democracy. That was the goal of the second amendment.