FYI, I am a gun owner with waaaay more guns than the average owner. I was raised within the gun culture and my father showed me how to shoot when I was only 6 with a 22. But I have no problem with background checks, bans on high capacity rounds and things like bump stocks One question I always have is about the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Even the current Supreme Court avoids discussing the phrase about "a well-regulated militia . . .". That seems to put a context on the right to bear. You can't ignore it. They put it in there for a purpose.
So what does it mean? You could make an argument that with the advent of the military grade assault rifle that it's even more applicable now, i.e. that ownership of those types of guns can only be within a state-authorized and operating militia such as the National Guard.
But even in the late 1700's there was a technological and qualitative difference between the guns used in a hunting context and those used in military organizations. The military guns were typically heavier, of higher caliber and had bayonet mounts. Was there a purposeful differentiation? For even Constitutional literalist you don't get to ignore that phrase.
