The Second Amendment

I find the Gun Lobby's distortion of the Second Amendment's original purpose one of the most damaging aspects of our country's history. Two centuries ago, when there could well have been a need for a militia, it made good sense that citizens had the right to "bear arms". To use this to justify AK 47s and the like is shameful. Many conservative jurists believe that we should consider the intent of the framers of our laws when interpreting them. This mantra is trotted out every time a court uses a "stretched" interpretation to accomplish the purpose intended by Congress. For once, I do look for a narrow interpretation. I believe that the second amendment justifies the possession of pistols and muskets by our citizenry, just in case we ever do need to call out a militia. The right to "bear arms" should not of itself permit the firing of pistols and muskets, of course, unless the user is serving in a militia.at the time. I see no justification for rifles, revolvers, or automatic weapons of any sort. Come on, you conservative justices, sitting for life on the benches of the highest court in the land! Be true to the intent of the framers of the second amendment! Muskets and pistols only, please!