The Right to Bear Arms is Outdated and Needs to be Repealed from the Constitution

The 2nd Amendment grants citizens the right to use a certain technology. It does not say "right to defend themselves" or "right to carry swords". It says "right to bear arms". The historically and contextually accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the states have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government by using war technology which was, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, guns: manual rifles and hand pistols which could fire 1-2 bullets per minute.

If the intent was enable states to defend themselves, then clearly they must have the right to match the war technology of the aggressive federal government against whom they have the right to defend themselves. The concept that the right is limited to guns is historically-bound and irrational, as it does not advanced through time along with literally every other right and law in the Federal Code. If the aggressive federal government uses technology to advance "arms" to the point of stealth bombers, tanks and nuclear missiles, how can a state possibly have the right to defend themselves using out-dated or limited technology? It cannot, therefore the only technologically accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment must be that private citizens have the right to bear whatever war technologies the federal government has, including tanks, stealth bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weaponry.

So the real question here is not do we want citizens have the right to own guns; it is do we want citizens have the right to own tanks, stealth bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weaponry? If the answer is No, then the only realistic course of action is to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely.

Given that the 2nd Amendment is a right to use technology, the underlying right must be viewed within the scope of the use of technology. To consider that right outside of the technological advancements and influences of finance, communication, etc. is to view the issue from an irrationally narrow view. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined an automatic assault weapon, much less the Internet. The right that the states have to defend themselves is not limited to just guns, and the entire scope of technologies that could be used to undermine an aggressive federal government at nearly limitless. That fact, along with the clear, scientifically-sound, evidence-based conclusion from >170 studies from across the globe that mere access to guns increases crime and violence overall, forces the reasonable person to conclude that the right to own guns carte blanche MUST be removed from the Constitution. Because it is outdated on its face, and because the spirit behind it has been usurped by the simple advancement of technologies over time.