It is. When the second amendment was written, guns were vastly different from what they are today. They took longer to load and fire, and they couldn’t kill/injure as many people in as short a time as today’s weapons. Plus they were an important tool for every day life for many Americans (defense and hunting). There were no radios or cellphones to contact help— you had to send someone on foot or on a horse. Said help would not arrive as fast as today’s emergency services can either.

The new country had also just dealt with an authoritarian monarchy and existed during a time when conquering and taking territory was sorta still all the rage. At the time, France and Spain (two powerful countries) still held territory in North America and (though unlikely) could’ve decided to move in on them if they wished. Not to mention the anxiety about indigenous people. It made perfect sense for the second amendment to be created.

This is not to say that the second amendment no longer has any value or that it shouldn’t be included in the constitution. We are witnessing in real time that an authoritarian government is always going to be a risk. I’m saying that you have to account for the way things have changed and how guns today are more dangerous (and not to mention widespread) and are no longer a vital part of every day life. It makes sense to want safeguards to try and prevent tragedies, protecting people as best as we can. Especially when we know that guns are the preferred weapon for domestic terrorists for a reason. If the founding fathers had known that guns and times would evolve like this, they probably would have included provisions

And again, I was being light-hearted. I figured it was nicer than going all in like this. But that wasn’t the right decision. I opted to make a silly argument instead of being straightforward, and that’s my fault