What matters is what they wrote. And they would have been the first to tell you that.

You are refuting an argument we never made. A sure way to win any debate.

If you interpret the second amendment the way Eri and I do it does NOT mean personal firearms are forbidden, as you imply. What it says is that no governmental agency can forbid the arming of a milita. Period.

That is NOT the same thing as outlawing guns. But it still gives the state the right to outlaw guns if it chooses to do so, providing the militia is not disarmed and it is done with due process.

For example, the post-colonial government had every right to confiscate guns (say, to combat an insurrection), provided it was authorized by the legislature or courts of the time. The constitutional prohibition was of disbanding the militia.

See my posts below if you still require clarification.