This is why you don't ban automatic weaponsFollow

He is merely proving that what they thought and what you think they thought are quite different.

On the other hand principles of freedom and liberty are timeless. We havn't had to start over because the yankee federalists refused to allow southern patriots their constitutional right to secede from an oppressive "republic".

So we should allow all kinds of arms, then? Including, say, nukes?

How they regard it is fairly irrelevant since the Supreme Court's decision in the DC gun ban case that it is an individual right. The majority didn't read it as a qualifying phrase.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

And how many dissented with the decision in Roe v. Wade?

Does that give it any less precedential value?

You make it sound like "the greater good" is better than your own family's personal protection.