Clever?

But they are necessary to the security of a free State!

anything that could possibly appose the state is often branded traitorous, often times militias fall into this category as they are, by the constitution's design, meant to protect the people from any future tyrannical form of our government which goes directly against the interests of the state itself.
one thing that they point to being the supposed "well regulated militia" is the national guard however the state itself has its hands all over it which goes directly against the point of having the militias as intended by the constitution.

A "Well-regulated militia" was always intended at the state level, not the federal. Either way, the definition has been warped.. either by the federal government or by individuals.

The militia once meant every able-bodied freeman aged 18 to 45.
They would be mustered from the people in times of crisis and had to provide their own military gear.
In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that a well-regulated militia can be formed from the people.
Remember that the British trying to disarm us is one of the sparks that caused the Revolutionary War. Why would the founders who just overthrew a tyrannical government turn around to take away the means of revolution? They wouldn't, and reading their books, diaries, declarations of intent, and analyzing other laws they implemented, shows that they didn't.

Agreed.... but at the state's request, not the federal government. That was a BIG ASS CHECK.
Bro.. I'm with yah for the most part.

It’s all kinda a mess. In the days of the founding fathers there were less than 1 billion people estimated in the whole world. The US population was about 2.5 million people, and the most devastating weapon known to man was a cannon. So the founding fathers lacked perspective into what war looked like in the future. To organize a militia with the capabilities to do what the founding fathers intended a militia to do would require the average citizen be able to purchase HEAT launching explosive munitions, artilliary capable of miles of range, tactical guided weapons platforms, heavy machine guns and squad support weaponry, anti aircraft weapons capable of bringing down high altitude and super sonic craft- air support, anti materiel riffles, mines, etc. modern war and the modern world are VERY different than they could conceive. So.. it’s idle speculation what the founding fathers would have done of such weapons were available when they wrote the constitution, or if they lived in a time..

... where a single city held the population of their entire country. Given the direction war and its weapons and tactics have taken, and given that we have ample fighting forces, a population surplus for the draft, and state level reserve forces... its questionable if they had such infrastructure if they would have felt it prudent to allow individuals to arm themselves with SAWS and LAWS. That said- the PRINCIPALS of self reliance, responsibility, defense, etc. they laid out were clear. In principal they felt there was an inalienable right to posses and bear weapons for the defense of ones life and liberty. In this era of modern war, militia forces like the Taliban are able to put up organized and effective resistance to technologically superior enemy forces- so we can’t totallu dismiss the potential effectiveness of a civilian militia- or the need for one. However...

... we should also remember that the founding fathers didn’t think people of color deserved the same rights as whites, or that women were little more than property- humans Less than and less deserving than men of basic freedoms. Do we do always have to remember that the intentions and actions of the founding fathers were not perfect or some sort of gospel. They literally included the ability to add or remove rights as society saw for as they knew they weren’t perfect and that America would hopeful live longer than them and they couldn’t see the future. So arguing gun ownership as a right is somewhat self defeating as the same constitution and law and principals that grants those rights also includes provisions on how to remove, restrict, or modify rights as suits the time we live in.

The constitution does not grant rights. It enshrines them.
And, in their lifetime, the founders had no qualms with semi-automatic weapons, explosives, or artillery in private possession.

The last founding father (James Madison) Died in 1836 at 85 years old. The semiautomatic rifle was invented in 1885 and the first pistol in the 1890’s. Much as current politicians haven’t taken a hardline stance on faster than light propulsion drives- I suspect it might have something to do with the fact such things weren’t invented in their lives. I also suspect that when you have 4x less people in the entire country as live in New York City alone in 2019- and nose people tend to be spread out with your greatest cities being no where near as concentrated in population as some modern small towns- and having little or no consistent way to quickly enforce law over much of that land- the determination of prudence for what a person be allowed might change a bit.

Belton Flintlock, Puckle Gun, Girandoni Rifle, and Pepper Box Revolver.
Also, much of the country still doesn't have a uniformed officer for every citizen, and they aren't legally obliged to protect people anyways.

The Belton Flintlock was not semi automatic. Well- to be precise it likely wasn’t. No one actually knows how it worked but as a musket weapon that could shoot up to 8 projectiles in rapid succession it was thought to be a weapon that staged a line of projectiles to fire in series. It was nevermass produced and the only recorded order of 15 was cancelled because congress thought it was too expensive. So if any of the founding fathers were aware it existed they likely weren’t too worried about it. The pickle gun was perhaps an “early machine gun,” but was not semi automatic either. It required a hand turned crank to ready the next round. Manual channeling like a single action revolver. The pepper box gun COULD be semi automatic. However early examples needed the barrel to be rotated by hand so were not semi automatic- fee if any semi automatic examples existed before the industrial revolution, and prior to mass production the guns were extremely expensive which made them almost...

... exclusively owned by the wealthy, and their lack of power, reliability, accuracy and range made them impractical weapons for most people to actually use. Because again- we are talking about a time when America had a population of Chicago. If you cleared all humans from the US and then spread the residents of Chicago out across the land- that was life. We also have to remember that up into the mid 1800’s dueling was still legal through most of the country as well, and the United was still primarily relying on militia forces over regular military into the 1900’s. When aircraft were invented you didn’t need a license to fly. If you could build or buy a plane up into the 1920’s those were credentials enough to fly a plane. So what happened? Well- people kept getting hurt, innocent bystanders and their properties kept getting hurt, and as we started to get population density it wasn’t practical to just let people do what they wanted and figure it was on them. Because now it wasn’t...

.... just on them. There was real potential to harm others or harm society. A single aircraft crashing into a dam or power plant etc could kill or injure many, cost people their livelihoods and set back progress. What’s more- as machines become more sophisticated, easier to use, and cost less- the users tend to go from educated and responsible to ????. Computers, drones, automobiles are perfect examples of machines that at one time were too expensive and too complicated for just anyone to use or justify. They required too much attention to run be a serious nuisance. Likewise- fungus and bullets weren’t cheap and people didn’t have the income or time by and large to waste. Industrial production of ammunition increased capabilities while decreasing costs. The world has changed ALOT in many ways since 1776. So we can’t just look at what the founding fathers would do or would want to guide us. They’d likely be completely lost in modern society.

That said we must be careful. The right to protect ones self, the attitudes of society about self reliance and accountability- these are important. It isn’t the cars fault when you slam into someone else. It’s yours. But we keep “improving” cars and the masses cry for the deliverance offered by self driving cars- yet accidents aren’t getting less common- because our answer to driver skill and accountability is to make it the cars fault. It’s the equivalent of saying the answer to gun violence is to pass laws that everyone needs to wear body armor. We can’t forget that as you said- a large part of the American revolution was because the British wanted to disarm us. To control us. After slavery was abolished and the civil war was over there was great debate of freed slaves should be allowed to own guns. Because people wanted to control them. Around the world and through history we see time and time again that when they come for the guns it is always about control, and it is almost...

... never the best thing for the individual. So I do not believe in the right to bear arms because some old asshole who couldn’t likely make it a month in modern times said so- I believe in it because I believe in people. I believe that the majority can be responsible and self reliant. I believe in the fundamental right to protection, I believe that guns are a form of power, and that the people should always have the ability to exert power over a government should all else fail. I believe in a balance of control and responsibility between government and citizen that underlines basic civics. I also however believe that people shouldn’t be given unrestricted ability to allow their personal freedoms to impinge upon the freedoms and lives of others and that there are prudent steps that can safeguard the freedom to arms and the legitimate use of it, while protecting people from abuses. No freedom is ever granted in absolutes.