Also, give me an example of firearms that have not played a part in warfare or self-defense at one point or another.
That's a fair point. I can't think offhand of a firearm that would not have a military or self-defense application. Even Miller's sawed-off shotgun could have been shown to have had a military application (
Miller v. U.S., 1939). But theoretically,
if a gun could be found that had no military or self-defense application, I don't believe it would be covered by the 2nd Amendment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No gun has to have a military or self defense purpose. ........In fact, since the 2A states "arms," not "firearms" it also applies to other weapons capable of being owned and carried by people.
The words "arms" and "bear" are terms of art, or at least they were in 1791, when the Amendment was adopted. "Arms" were the ordinary weapons of the soldier, including his musket, bayonet, and ammunition. "Bear" didn't mean to carry them around haphazardly. It meant to carry them under some sort of military drill and discipline. Of course these terms have been broadened with the passing centuries, but you get the idea.
OK, the Militia Clause was negated by Justice Scalia as mere "prefatory language," in the
Heller case. I believe that that was a mistake. His interpretation
narrowed the scope of the 2nd Amendment, and
weakened the right to bear arms. (It's going to be used to uphold AWB's in the future.) The correct view, in my opinion, is to give the Militia Clause due weight, with the understanding that
all members of the public are part of the constitutional militia. The upshot of that view is that everybody is entitled to his own machine gun.