Since the scope of the second amendment isn’t specific, does that mean we can re-define it down to butter knives … or toothpicks?
Revisionists ignore the context from which the second amendment arose, and the arguments that were made at the time, and they just want to focus specifically on the wording and try to cast doubt and confusion to make their “solution” sound “reasonable”.
The second amendment, at the VERY least, should clearly cover self-defense. When you read the context of it’s development, it is also clear that offensive weapons would be needed to perform some of the tasks the founders had in mind for defending ourselves from oppresive government. I don’t have a problem with “machine guns” or “assault rifles”.
Nowhere in the second amendment does it even come close to talking about limiting use to sport shooting, — it doesn’t mention sport shooting at all. That doesn’t mean that sport shooting should be banned any more than it not mentioning hand guns or assault rifles means your right to keep and bear them can be infringed.